Don't know if anyone said this, but they all sang and eventually all wrote songs. Also, their hair was a a sign of rebellion, and as George said they were an excuse to go crazy. They had a lot of tv appearances, etc.

Right on!

And most reviews began sheepishly, as in "You're not going to believe this, but ...."

[Mr Sun King CT, the Ed Sullivan Show is essentially when the Beatles were introduced to America, and the critics' reviews were beyond  belief when seen in hindsight]

Talent played a big part in their success, but only in retrospect. [Initially, the critics were unanimous in agreeing that the Beatles had NO talent.]

That one thing everyone talked about was .... THEIR HAIR.

By the standards of the day, their hair was frightfully long and "ridiculous"

But there's a great marketing lesson there: it's not enough to be great. You have to ...]]> Thu, 02 Aug 2012 14:25:58 +0100 http://www.beatlesbible.com/forum/yesterday-and-today/what-was-the-key-to-the-beatles-success/#p54926 Yesterday... and today http://www.beatlesbible.com/forum/yesterday-and-today/what-was-the-key-to-the-beatles-success/#p54926 Yeah, that fascinates me, the following and the notoriety that Ringo had. I've got this jazz book called "Four Lives in the Bebop Business", a profile of four struggling jazz musicians written mostly around 1965, and it quotes alto sax player Jackie McLean reminiscing about some 1940s musical hero of his (Charlie Parker, maybe?) and describing him as "...huge, like the way maybe Ringo Starr of the Beatles is today."

A band with 4 "equals" (yes, early on some loved Ringo most) casts a much wider net than an individual performer or a band with just a single front man.

But I agree with everyone else: it wasn't a single factor. It was the fact that they had ALL these different things going from them.

And no one has since.

Certainly the music scene back in 1962 in the UK and 1964 in the US was filled with bland artists who had about as much charisma as a flat pancake, but then there is also a myth that the 60's was filled with amazing bands at every turn after the Beatles turned up. The Beatles certainly influenced many bands and kicked down the dull safe barrier that record executives had ...]]> Sat, 28 Jul 2012 11:52:33 +0100 http://www.beatlesbible.com/forum/yesterday-and-today/what-was-the-key-to-the-beatles-success/#p54810 Yesterday... and today http://www.beatlesbible.com/forum/yesterday-and-today/what-was-the-key-to-the-beatles-success/#p54810 Vonbontee said, "Regarding talent: We need a poster who was there at the time – somebody like Robert or Celebrated Mr. K, who hasn't posted here in a long long while – to attest to the fact that nothing on USA airwaves sounded like "She Loves You" in early '64…"

The biggest hit in the U.S. in 1963 was "Dominique" by the Singing Nun.

Check out:

Need we say more?

[We DID have the Beach Boys and the Four Seasons though...]

Brian (without Brian i dont believe they would have gotten their act together, smartened up, been more professional, and progressed to higher levels),

Timing (so many ifs)

Personaliity/Charmisma (eg the fact that when asked stupid questions as was the norm back then by the media they didnt give the same stock answers as all who came before but would reply with more daft answers - the fact they were openly enjoying themselves, something that is so appealing even now, talked sense, took no crap)

Talent and Drive (a must for ...]]> Sat, 28 Jul 2012 01:59:45 +0100 http://www.beatlesbible.com/forum/yesterday-and-today/what-was-the-key-to-the-beatles-success/#p54801 Yesterday... and today http://www.beatlesbible.com/forum/yesterday-and-today/what-was-the-key-to-the-beatles-success/#p54801 I think it was all timing. Having talent probably helped them a bit too. Brian was also a big help to all this, because he didn't give up on them when they kept getting rejected.