Beatlemania

February 7, 2007 7:49 AM

On this day (February 7) in 1964, the Beatles arrived in America for the first time.. Two days later they made their first appearance on the Ed Sullivan Show (YouTube, approx. 9 mins.). Read a transcript of their first American press conference, snippets from other 1964 interviews, and a fictional 1963-64 blog written from the point of view of a 15-year-old fan in New York.
posted by amyms (68 comments total)

a fictional 1963-64 blog written from the point of view of a 15-year-old fan in New York.

For some reason, that gives me a serious case of the creepies.
posted by ColdChef at 7:55 AM on February 7, 2007

Awesome. I was three but I swear I remember watching this.
posted by Turtles all the way down at 7:56 AM on February 7, 2007

And I don't care what anyone says, I think Ringo's cute.
posted by Turtles all the way down at 7:58 AM on February 7, 2007

Recollections of that night from the husband/wife comedy team that opened for the fabs, including backstage anecdotes.
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 7:59 AM on February 7, 2007

43 years ago . . . oh. my. god.
posted by birdhaus at 8:03 AM on February 7, 2007

The audience in the Ed Sullivan clip is just as fun to watch/listen to as the Beatles.
posted by veggieboy at 8:07 AM on February 7, 2007

It's really weird how you can only hear Paul in that Ed Sullivan clip. It's as though his evil minions have actually revised history.
posted by padraigin at 8:21 AM on February 7, 2007

The thing that I always find most striking about this footage is watching the faces of the young women in the crowd who are shrieking and/or sobbing uncontrollably. The music is certainly great and even somewhat fresh today, 43 years later. But it's hard for me to imagine how unbelieveably repressive 50s/early 60s American society must have been to elicit such a visceral response.
posted by psmealey at 8:23 AM on February 7, 2007

The music is certainly great and even somewhat fresh today, 43 years later.

Sure, if you're old.
posted by Autumn Dandy at 8:26 AM on February 7, 2007

I'm old. Now, get the fuck off my lawn.
posted by psmealey at 8:27 AM on February 7, 2007

But it's hard for me to imagine how unbelieveably repressive 50s/early 60s American society must have been to elicit such a visceral response.

I don't think it's a sign of the times, I think it's just a teenage-girl-thing, regardless of the era... I've seen footage of girls in the 40s reacting that way to crooners... And my friends and I were known to get all giggly/screamy/weepy over some cute rockers in the 70s/80s...

*dreamy sigh*
posted by amyms at 8:30 AM on February 7, 2007

What if the Beatles landed today?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 8:33 AM on February 7, 2007

The directing and camera work on the Sullivan clip is surprisingly good. They almost always managed to focus on the right singer or the soloist at the right time. Funny though that John gets so little screen time compared to Paul.
posted by octothorpe at 8:34 AM on February 7, 2007

Also, this was not the first time in America for George, who had stayed for a couple of weeks with his sister in southern Illinois the previous fall, hanging at the local record store, sitting in with a local band at the VFW hall, and lobbying the local radio station to play a record by his band (whom no one had heard of). A great story.
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 8:38 AM on February 7, 2007

Funny though that John gets so little screen time compared to Paul.

I'm telling you: evil minions of Paul.
posted by padraigin at 8:44 AM on February 7, 2007

*shrieks, sobs uncontrollably*

What am I supposed to do with my hands?

*shrieks, stomps, moans*

If he talks in that cute accent again, I'll just die!

*moans, sobs into hands*
posted by breezeway at 8:45 AM on February 7, 2007

Sure, if you're old.

Or maybe 40 years of imitators (and it's a rare group in any pop genre that wasn't influenced a least a smidgen by these guys, even if it was reacting against them). Put it to you this way, as I detail in this old Mecha post, I have in my personal collection at least eight songs about the Beatles and like the punks of later years, they inspired a ridiculous number of people to form bands. I can't imagine any contemporary act today eliciting that big of a response. (alos, cool link, ssf. I was not aware of that.
posted by jonmc at 8:47 AM on February 7, 2007

For an unexpected parallel to the Beatles/Ed Sullivan Show story, see to Act One of this great TAL episode.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 8:48 AM on February 7, 2007

HUH? That's JFK? And why are there bobbies minding the fenced-off areas?
posted by wfc123 at 9:00 AM on February 7, 2007

Hey, and it's my birthday, too!

Yeah, yeah, yeah.
posted by yhbc at 9:02 AM on February 7, 2007

Also, don't forget the criminally underappreciated Robert Zemeckis/Bob Gale 1978 comedy I Wanna Hold Your Hand, about a group of teenagers desperately trying to see the Beatles' Ed Sullivan taping.

Quite a fun and charming movie.
posted by motherfather at 9:12 AM on February 7, 2007

I think Richie Unterberger summed the Fabs up well on Allmusic.com:

...it's difficult to summarize their career without restating clichés that have already been digested by tens of millions of rock fans. To start with the obvious, they were the greatest and most influential act of the rock era, and introduced more innovations into popular music than any other rock band of the 20th century. Moreover, they were among the few artists of any discipline that were simultaneously the best at what they did and the most popular at what they did...

posted by Lord Kinbote at 9:20 AM on February 7, 2007 [1 favorite]

Sure, if you're old.

Son, yore feet are on mah lawn.

I literally shit my pants the day the Beatles landed in america. (I was one.)
posted by Devils Rancher at 9:20 AM on February 7, 2007

But it's hard for me to imagine how unbelieveably repressive 50s/early 60s American society must have been to elicit such a visceral response.

Guess you've never been to an NSYNC or Justin Timberlake concert then? From my niece's reports it's non-stop hysteria, eardrum bursting insanity, every bit as nuts as those ancient *sigh* Beatles concerts. Can't believe it's 43 years. Wow, a whole other millennium ago. And come to think of it, when I went to the Rolling Stones Steel Wheels concert in the 90's it was pretty crazy with the screaming too, geriatrics going gaga.
posted by nickyskye at 9:23 AM on February 7, 2007

I've seen footage of girls in the 40s reacting that way to crooners...

My Mom was one those girls sighing "Franky" in the forties. She told me that she and other girls from her high school would take the train from Jersey on Saturdays to see Frank Sinatra at Radio City. Frank would sing a set, then you'd see a movie and some shorts and then Frank would come out and do another set.
posted by octothorpe at 9:23 AM on February 7, 2007

HUH? That's JFK? And why are there bobbies minding the fenced-off areas?

Yikes, I didn't even notice the bobbies... When I was compiling links for my post, I searched for footage of the arrival at JFK and that's the clip that came up in my search (insert confused/embarrassed face here)... I'll do some more digging around and see if I can find a replacement.
posted by amyms at 9:24 AM on February 7, 2007

stupidsexyFlanders, in regard to your comment, my favorite obscure detail of that relatively obscure fact is that George picked up a copy of Booker T & the MG's "Green Onions" on that trip. I can only imagine how that slab of Memphis funk blew the collective minds of the other Beatles in '63.
posted by joseph_elmhurst at 9:25 AM on February 7, 2007 [1 favorite]

My grandparents gave me a transistor radio for Christmas in 1963. I would fall asleep with my ear on the radio and the radio on my pillow.

US Armed Forces Radio in Germany was pretty awful back then so I would listen to German stations. I was so surprised when I found out that the Beatles weren't a German group.
posted by taosbat at 9:31 AM on February 7, 2007

Nice post and even more so because we love the beatles
posted by danswayuk at 9:35 AM on February 7, 2007

Several months later, Bob Dylan and the Beatles would meet in America.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 9:41 AM on February 7, 2007

Weird that I was just reading a bunch of Beatles articles this weekend... that BnB Louise Harrison opened caused a rift between her and her brother that was resolved shortly before his death.
posted by potsmokinghippieoverlord at 9:45 AM on February 7, 2007

stupidSexyFlanders, that article was really interesting. It's one of those things where you realize, "wow, you never, ever think about the other guy" in big stories like this. I remember how one time during the Olympics they had this special that looked at a whole bunch of athletes who went to the Olympics... and didn't win. And nothing happened to them after that. It's depressing- they got to the fucking Olympics and they're nobody. And you just have to not think about that because if you do you pretty much just die inside.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 9:52 AM on February 7, 2007

It's depressing- they got to the fucking Olympics and they're nobody.

No, they're somebody who was good enough to make it to the Olympics.

And you just have to not think about that because if you do you pretty much just die inside.

Why? Winning is great, but it isn't everything.
posted by jonmc at 9:55 AM on February 7, 2007

[edited out the first link which was incorrect, poster's request]
posted by jessamyn at 9:58 AM on February 7, 2007

Thanks Jessamyn :)
posted by amyms at 10:02 AM on February 7, 2007

I always thought George looked just like Spock.
And didn't Spock play a lute in season 2?
Coinkydance?
posted by Dizzy at 10:05 AM on February 7, 2007

Wow, I love the Beatles, but I never realized how.... dorky... they look. Especially Paul. What's with that head bopping?

It makes my father-in-law's dorky Beatles cover band seem much... I don't know. I just never thought of my father in law when watching Paul McCartney before. It must be the head bopping.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 10:26 AM on February 7, 2007

"Winning is great, but it isn't everything."

Communist.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 11:00 AM on February 7, 2007

on a related note, here's a link to my FPP from last week on the Beatles' last concert (38 years ago January 30).
posted by pruner at 11:01 AM on February 7, 2007

on February 11, 1964 the Beatles performed at the Coliseum in Washinton, DC.
posted by pruner at 11:08 AM on February 7, 2007

My sister was in the studio audience at both Beatles' Ed Sullivan appearances, and she also made it to Shea Stadium for their concert. Those were very different days. Nothing these days could be quite that big - a TV event that was so important for 13-year-old girls would pass almost unnoticed by adults, since we all have our own media now.
posted by QuietDesperation at 11:23 AM on February 7, 2007

those nine minute on ed sullivan were the best nine minutes in the history of the world.
posted by 3.2.3 at 11:53 AM on February 7, 2007

It seems like only 5 minutes ago that we had the last Beatles nostalgiaversary.
posted by joseppi7 at 12:06 PM on February 7, 2007

Those of us of a certain age - I was eleven or twelve when they landed, eighteen when they broke up - were profoundly affected by this particular boy band. (So much evolution in those seven years!) Trying psychedelics the year Sgt. Peppers came out...
posted by kozad at 12:10 PM on February 7, 2007

on February 11, 1964 the Beatles performed at the Coliseum in Washinton, DC.

My wife bought me the collector's edition of the Beatles' movie "Help!" some years ago, and while the main feature itself is a turd of a movie, it had some interesting extras in it.

Most notably, it had an entire DVD that was a documentary of the Beatles' trip to America. I think it might have been shot on Super 8 by someone close to the band. It had no voiceover or scene setting, but covered the whole thing: them getting off the plane, at the press conference, in the limo on the way to the Waldorf, at the Ed Sullivan Show in the hotel, on the train to DC, etc. Had some great footage of their show in DC as well as some awesome unexpected, private stuff (groupies trying to break into their rooms). I looked it up on line a few moments ago, but couldn't find it. If you come across it, though, I highly recommend it.
posted by psmealey at 12:18 PM on February 7, 2007

psmealey. I have the footage you are talking about on VHS. Its a superb documentary, and it's fun to see what the times were like.
posted by wheelieman at 12:28 PM on February 7, 2007

They also met Cassius Clay (I think this was right before he changed his name to Muhammad Ali). Britain's bush-haired Beatles met boxing's Baron of Bray is a contemporaneous report from The Ottawa Journal.

Clay admitted that someone other than himself is "great," for the first time, and he predicted that he will flatten Liston in three rounds, even though the brash 22-year-old contender is a 6-1 underdog at the moment.

The Beatles, dressed in flashy sport shirts, snow-white vests and beach shoes, enjoyed the meeting as much as Clay.

They entered the training ring with a "yeah, yeah, yeah" and pretended to attack Clay en masse.

Clay shouted "no, no, no" and feigned horror.

posted by kirkaracha at 1:22 PM on February 7, 2007

Lucky us!!!
:)
posted by oMoses at 3:08 PM on February 7, 2007

Wow, I saw that when I was nine. Mom and the old man wouldn't have it, because my uncle, a member of the John Birch Society in Orange County (CA), had apparently warned them by long distance of the upcoming corruption to our young Catholic minds. I think my brothers and I got to see 'She Loves You' and then it was on to Lawrence Welk or something by parental dictum. And then we brothers played a board game. Monopoly, I think.
The next day in fifth grade class at St. Thomas the Apostle, our teacher, Mrs White, got a record player from the A-V room and played the tunes the Beatles did on the previous night's 'shoe' (Ed Sullivan was cool, during recess. Not a single one of the girls went on the playground.
I can trace the beginning of doubts of authority to that night. But you must start somewhere!
Thank you amyms.
posted by nj_subgenius at 4:12 PM on February 7, 2007

You want a 1964 Beatles blog? A sixteen-year-old guy from suburban Ohio kept one (well, a diary). Figuring it might be okay for a train ride, I picked up a used copy; I was amazed and absolutely fascinated. I knew a lot about the period and the music already, but I didn't really understand how incredibly different even the small details were. Culture shock ahoy!
posted by booksandlibretti at 4:33 PM on February 7, 2007

Apropos of nothing^*

*: well, almost nothing
posted by Flunkie at 4:35 PM on February 7, 2007

excellent post. But what is the young woman at 6:29 of the Sullivan Show clip thinking?

Okay. I know, I know. But, still...
posted by mmahaffie at 7:32 PM on February 7, 2007

Wow, I love the Beatles, but I never realized how.... dorky... they look. Especially Paul. What's with that head bopping?


Yeah, but that shit didn't start being dorky until the Beatles stopped doing it. The Beatles started the rebellion against themselves.
posted by spaltavian at 10:00 PM on February 7, 2007

I don't know where animosity towards The Beatles comes from, and by that I also mean those who think the band is irrelevant because they aren't "new." Well, I'm not old. I wasn't there when The Beatles arrived in the USA. I wasn't even born when they broke up. As a matter of fact, when I arrived on this planet, John Lennon had been dead for years, and I'm here to tell you, they are the band that spawned the rock industry as it still exists today. Punk and so called "Grunge" (which never really existed) all thrived by being covered by the very serious rock media that was created in the wake of The Beatles and their fellow British invaders. Bands are expected to write their own material, and those that don't are never taken seriously. That's because of The Beatles. Rock musicians are expected to be aware of their times and have opinions, because of The Beatles. Sure. The shrill screams and "mania" were there before The Beatles and have been witnessed again later, but no single Rock and Roll band (and make no mistake - The Beatles are one) has ever affected hairstyles, fashion, politics, or journalism as much as these guys from Liverpool did. No one ever will again. Add to that an unbelievable musical output and growth that 30-year old bands envy. Even Bob Dylan recongized them as harbingers of a new age. The Beatles are not overrated. The Beatles ARE the rating system itself.
posted by RayOrama at 11:23 PM on February 7, 2007

In what way did "Grunge" not really exist?
posted by the cuban at 1:21 AM on February 8, 2007

In what way did "Grunge" not really exist?

If you consider Nirvana (pop punk), Pearl Jam (70s arena rock), Soundgarden and Alice in Chains (both metal) to be the sole purveyors of grunge, then it probably didn't exist for you.

However, if you were aware of Skin Yard, Green River, Dead Moon, (early) Screaming Trees, the Dwarves and all the other countless, nameless bands that toiled away in garages of the Pacific NW fueled by nothing more than caffeine and Rainier beer during the late 80s, then grunge was a very real thing for you.
posted by psmealey at 4:59 AM on February 8, 2007

Don't tell me it didn't exist, I was there, man - filter.
posted by psmealey at 5:00 AM on February 8, 2007

Grunge was a label used to lump together all sorts of bands coming out of Seattle in the late '80s, but it was not a sound or style. Seattle bands were as varied as they were plentiful. Nirvana was a Punk band, as the world has come to know that term. Pearl Jam's sound is informed by the classic tradition of bands such as The Who and performers like Neil Young. Alice In Chains was a Heavy Metal band, while Soundgarden could go from Hard Rock to Metal with great ease. All of these bands sprang from the very same geographical area, ate the same kind of foods, went to the same type of schools, suffered through the same dismal weather conditions and played the same clubs; so of course, they were bound to end up borrowing pages from each others' playbooks. But, no one can tell me that Nirvana plays the same style of music as Alice In Chains did. Their output was filtered through their common environment, true, but the end result was unique to each of them. Apples will never be oranges, even if they grew in the same state. The word "Grunge" was invented so that the Seattle scene could be marketed to the masses. The "grunge look" was no fashion statement. Seattle bands wore flannel shirts, for instance, because it was damned cold, not out of any desire to be chic. Grunge has never really existed, except as a media catch phrase. Even "Punk" doesn't describe a particular sound, but an attitude, and just as with Grunge, it was a magazine which first lumped everything that was happening at CBGB's and Max's Kansas City as "Punk." The Ramones, Patti Smith, The Stooges, The New York Dolls and even Blondie (then called Stiletto) are very different from each other, but they are all considered Punk. In the words of John Lydon (a.k.a. Johnny Rotten), "Punk means 'do it yourself'," and if that's true, then the minute a band signs with a major label it stops being Punk, even if its sound doesn't change.
posted by RayOrama at 9:50 AM on February 8, 2007

those nine minute on ed sullivan were the best nine minutes in the history of the world.

No.

Mary B., you were the best nine minutes in the history of the world...wherever you are these days.
posted by pax digita at 10:05 AM on February 8, 2007

It's probably more apt to consider grunge more of an aesthetic than a musical genre, perhaps a bit like "goth". Bauhaus/Peter Murphy/Daniel Ash, Siouxsie, the Cure, Christian Death etc. don't share much of anything in common musically, but certainly can be positioned together.

In my 8 year life stint in Seattle, though, it was commonly debated though, what exactly was grunge and what wasn't. Even if a lot of the bands hated the term, as many embraced it and it did have a certain ring to it. Grunge for lack of a more operative term, kind of represented a second coming of DIY (the first being the Hardcore, early 80s LA and DC scenes): stripped down metal and punk-inspired rock that was better known for its snide amateurishness than its sincerity or polish. Bands like Green River, Tad, Gruntruck, Skin Yard, etc. more or less typified this.
posted by psmealey at 11:06 AM on February 8, 2007

I agree that the Seattle bands were as varied as they were plentiful, but this doesnt mean Grunge "didnt exist".

The 'British Invasion' still exists despite The Beatles (a.k.a Quarrymen), Stones and Dave Clark 5 not sounding (much) like each other.
posted by the cuban at 3:49 AM on February 9, 2007

The 'British Invasion' still exists despite The Beatles (a.k.a Quarrymen), Stones and Dave Clark 5 not sounding (much) like each other.

The British Invasion refers to the influx of bands coming from the "old country" in the early sixties. It doesn't (and has never been used) to describe the sound or style of the bands of that first wave. The Beatles were dogedly optimistic and experimental, in contrast to the earthy and nihilistic Rolling Stones. Grunge, on the other hand, has been used to try and pigeonhole a specific type of sound, and it's in that sense that it doesn't exist.

It's probably more apt to consider grunge more of an aesthetic than a musical genre, perhaps a bit like "goth". Bauhaus/Peter Murphy/Daniel Ash, Siouxsie, the Cure, Christian Death etc. don't share much of anything in common musically, but certainly can be positioned together.

I completely agree. But, I have to take exception at including the Dave Clark Five in the same breath as the Fab Four and Stones. Dave Clark's music is certainly fun, and has a thundering, percussive attack, but it's not in the same category of his more sophisticated and influential contemporaries. Bands more worthy of mention would be The Kinks, The Who, the Moody Blues, and even The Animals.

Also, even The Stones owe their career to The Beatles, since it was the latter who wrote their first hit, "I Wanna Be Your Man," and inspired Richards and Jagger to start writing their own material, instead of continuing to be a Blues covers band. The Beatles also expanded the horizons of all British bands. No band from the U.K. had ever made it in the States, and by doing so, the floodgates opened for the incredible bands and music that would follow.
posted by RayOrama at 11:38 AM on February 9, 2007

Be that as it may, the Beatles' best songs were their Chuck Berry covers.

Pearl Jam were influenced by one band, and one band only: Bad Company.

Actually, they were Bad Company.

Those are opinions, and while they may be disagreeable to some, are only meant as statements of preference or viewpoint. Argument over these statements is a waste of time.

I'm a delightful imp! I'm a delightful imp!
posted by breezeway at 11:59 AM on February 9, 2007

Those are opinions, and while they may be disagreeable to some, are only meant as statements of preference or viewpoint. Argument over these statements is a waste of time.

Oh, no you don't. Because first, you said this:

the Beatles' best songs were their Chuck Berry covers.

There's having different tastes, and then, well, there's that. But then, what do I know? I learned last week that there are some people that actually like Mr. Bungle.

The Pearl Jam/Bad Co. analogy is a bit cheap to me. Mick Ralphs did a lot more with one guitar than both of those clowns in Pearl Jam do with two.

I rather think of Pearl Jam as the Rossington/Collins Band (not even Lynyrd Skynyrd). A boring twin guitar attack southern rock band. In their defense however, "Spin the Black Circle" is a very good song, unfortunately PJ doesn't have anything else in their entire catalogue that comes close to it.
posted by psmealey at 12:24 PM on February 9, 2007

So you dislike their Chuck Berry covers? Perhaps I should've said "my favorite" instead of "the best." It's all the same. We're talking about music here. What you like is what you like.

Hadn't thought about the PJ/Rossington-Collins continuum. So, "Spin the Black Circle" is your favorite Pearl Jam song? Marvelous.

Sorry about my tastes. You know what they say, "Give a guy an opinion and suddenly the world's crawling with shitheads." Here, have a little Listerine to wash my bad taste out of your mouth. So fresh.
posted by breezeway at 1:36 PM on February 9, 2007

breezeway, I was just giving you a hard time. Perhaps my sunny nature did not shine through here well enough. I got a smackdown last Friday on the Black Sabbath thread for daring not to like Ronny James Dio (or Mike Patton).

Of course I like the Beatles Chuck Berry covers, almost as much as I like their Berry/Gordy, Little Richard and Otis Redding covers. I probably liked their Chuck Berry covers a bit less, at at the stage of development at which they recorded them, their guitar playing really wasn't up to it. It sounds charming, but technically not very good.

You like what you like and you're entitled to like what you like. it just seemed kind of a trollish thing to post to a topic which has already attracted a pretty fair number of Beatles afficionados (even if it's a stale thread by now).

Now, will someone please post a Pearl Jam thread so I can go on about how much I liked them better as "Mookie Blaylock"?
posted by psmealey at 1:49 PM on February 9, 2007

You don't like Mike Van Patten?

I was yanking your chain a bit in turn. I honestly do like the Chuck Berry songs best, but, like many of my preferences, I freely admit that it's goofy and based on quirky half-lit memories of my early childhood, dancing around the living room with my mom, that sort of thing. That sort of reason is worth thinking about, though; I reckon lots of folks with sophisticated tastes might argue tooth and nail over the legitimacy of their liking crap when they actually, deep down inside, love it because it reminds them of their first kiss. Or riding to the ballpark in the front seat of their dad's Ford Maverick.

Anyway, it's absolutely true that I love tweaking the music crowd, not because I'm not part of it, but because my approach to criticism seems different from theirs.

I'm a musician. I've been one all my life. I have diverse and specific tastes, ranging all over the world, all over the centuries, all over instuments and voices and cultures. There's stuff I like, and there's stuff that's very similar to stuff I like, that I don't like. I guess I'm following my muse. I find it interesting to hear what others like, and instructive to hear why, sometimes, but not always.

My brother, who is also a lifelong musician, is a stay-at-home dad to my nephew, who's four, and the apple of my eye. They live near Washington, DC, and most weeks visit the great collection of museums they have on the Mall. The kid loves going to the art gallery, and my brother loves taking him. He finds all these different reasons to like different pieces of art: look, George Washington is in this painting, and that's him there, and he's in this painting over there. That one with the shark is so big! I like this because it's blue. That's art appreciation! Who cares what the pedigree is, if you don't like it, you don't like it. And if you do like it, there's a world of things to learn about it.

Art, music, it's the same thing to me. Things we like or dislike that exist simply for us to like or dislike. It's not that sophisticated an approach, but it satisfies me.

I agree 100% on Mookie Blaylock.
posted by breezeway at 2:55 PM on February 9, 2007

breezeway, we have significantly more in common than I had imagined. Thanks for the tasty coda.
posted by psmealey at 6:33 PM on February 9, 2007