MovieChat Forums > General Discussion > What Critics Said About The Beatles in 1...

What Critics Said About The Beatles in 1964


LA Times: With their bizarre shrubbery, the Beatles are obviously a press agent’s dream combo. Not even their mothers would claim that they sing well. But the hirsute thickets they affect make them rememberable, and they project a certain kittenish charm which drives the immature, shall we say, ape.

William F Buckley, noted conservative writer in the Boston Globe:
An estimable critic writing for National Review, after seeing Presley writhe his way through one of Ed Sullivan’s shows … suggested that future entertainers would have to wrestle with live octopuses in order to entertain a mass American audience. The Beatles don’t in fact do this, but how one wishes they did! And how this one wishes the octopus would win….

The Beatles are not merely awful; I would consider it sacrilegious to say anything less than that they are god awful. They are so unbelievably horribly, so appallingly unmusical, so dogmatically insensitive to the magic of the art that they qualify as crowned heads of anti-music, even as the imposter popes went down in history as “anti-popes


Newsweek:
Visually they are a nightmare, tight, dandified Edwardian-Beatnik suits and great pudding bowls of hair. Musically they are a near disaster, guitars and drums slamming out a merciless beat that does away with secondary rhythms, harmony and melody. Their lyrics (punctuated by nutty shouts of “yeah, yeah, yeah”) are a catastrophe, a preposterous farrago of Valentine-card romantic sentiments….

The big question in the music business at the moment is, will the Beatles last? The odds are that, in the words of another era, they’re too hot not to cool down, and a cooled-down Beatle is hard to picture. It is also hard to imagine any other field in which they could apply their talents, and so the odds are that they will fade away, as most adults confidently predict. But the odds in show business have a way of being broken, and the Beatles have more showmanship than any group in years; they might just think up a new field for themselves. After all, they have done it already.

Chicago Tribune: The Beatles must be a huge joke, a wacky gag, a gigantic put-on. And if, as the fellow insisted on What’s My Line?, they’re selling 20,000 Beatle wigs a day in New York at $2.98 a shake — then I guess everyone wants to share the joke. And the profits.


reply

Who reads reviews when you're a teenager? LOL. Loved them then, still love them 57 years later.

reply

I'm reading the new book, "The Last Days of John Lennon" (while skipping the Chapman shit) and read this



CBS musical director Ray Bloch believes he’s discovered the reason for the crush, and he’s unimpressed. “The only thing that’s different is the hair as far as I can see,” he says. “I give them a year.”

reply

Their early pop music wasn't exactly musically innovative. But it was catchy.

reply

Their first ablums were all about attracting the attention of teenage girls. Standard pop bubble-gum music.

The reviewers were middle-aged men, who were clearly in error regarding their potential.

reply

I've listened to their early albums and agree they weren't that impressive. A number of the tracks were nothing but covers of existing songs.

Producer George Martin's arrangements of the music was what gave the Beatles that unique sound that propelled them to classic status.

reply

They were one of a few bands who seemed to change every year or so.. Early on, it was the love ballads, then folk-rock, then psychedelia, etc etc., even "Getting back" at the end.

reply

their growth between 64 and 66 was astounding.

thing is, their long apprenticeship before had them technically ready to blossom with the means to explore music creatively, given the opportunities stardom afforded, amidst the mentorship of George Martin in the studio.

they had quickly discovered that playing live was chaos, that their studio work would be their legacy.

reply

The octopus won against William Fuckley, and the 8 arms will hold him in heck.
I love the Chicago one: 20,000 Beatle wigs a day! Everyone is sharing the joke and the profit!
Little did these idiots know that within 5 years they would have literally changed the world. Yes there was a big backlash to them, but the Fascists can never put the genie back in the bottle!

reply

The Fascists own the bottles and they make the genies.

reply


These guys probably picked Custer over the Indians.

😎

reply

LOL😄
Likely correct!

reply


😎

reply

I imagine it was a scene like in Walk Hard: The Dewy Cox story when the priest would say "It's the Devil's Music".

reply

I'm not a Beatles fan ( I don't dislike them and I appreciate their contribution to musical history ) but reviews from grey flannel suit fuddy-duddies can't be taken too seriously. It all comes across as just ( yet another ) in a long line of parental class "Kids today....sigh" lamenting.

Asking staid establishment types to review modern music is like asking Ann Landers or Dear Abby what are the best rolling papers for smoking pot.

reply

But when they're read by millions, the readers follow. It's just like "social media" in that they set the narrative for national discussions.

reply

Technically true, but many prolific movements began as underground attractions. Indeed being an underground attraction is a badge of honor in many artist's minds. They, so to speak, "welcome their ( the maintream press ) hatred".

It's doubtful of bands such as KISS, Metallica, Iron Maiden, The WHO and the like would enjoy the peoplularity and support of their fans if Lawrence Welk endorsed them.

reply

The funny thing about the establishment is that while they're busy rejecting, their Plan B is to absorb them.

I think a lot of the underground artists will do what it takes to be a part of the establishment.. This certainly has happened in rock, which I think has been dead for 40 years anyway, but yesterday's radical is today's pro-establishment.

reply

Yeah, some, like Metallica did sell out for a time, but the establishment really does seek to absorb acts in an attempt to harness their "movement", so to speak.

A musician of friend of mine, and co-worker always has eye opening insight into the music world, as it relates to business. I remember one thing he said i still remember: "If you're a musician or a band, what the music business end of things does is try to separate you from your music" as best as I remember. I didn't understand it then, but I can see what he meant now.

reply

Every time I hear about a pop star, it NEVER has anything to do with music.. Someone is "offended" (which seems to be the new way to get attention)

reply