Obviously there were tons of adults in 1964 who thought the Beatles (and their long hair, soon to get MUCH longer) were a passing fad with no real redeeming features . . . . but there were also a not insignificant number of 14-to-20-something American males who turned their noses up at the British invasion, because the long-hair thing was a challenge to (a) traditional masculinity and (b) Americans' dominance of our own pop music scene.
I'm not just talking about the 1966 "we're bigger than Jesus" kerfuffle in the American Bible-belt, either. Lots of the older boys in my area (NY, NJ, & Philadelphia) were anti-Beatles from 1964-1966. It took them a few years to come around to a pro-Beatles stance. That evolution was helped by (c) the threat to their lives that being drafted into the Vietnam war posed, and (d) the degree to which they noticed that the pro-Beatles/hippie/revolution American males were getting laid.
reply
share
Clemencedane
9 years ago
That's interesting. Somehow I never pictured that aspect of the situation, not having been alive then.
reply
share
[email protected]
9 years ago
Yeah, ragging on the Beatles was a thing back then - like in this other movie that came out about the same time - Goldfinger. Bond says "There are some things that just aren't done, like drinking Dom Perignon above 38 degrees Fahrenheit. That's as bad as listening to the Beatles without earmuffs!"
Of course another movie also came out around that time - A Hard Day's Night - that showed the larger world these guys had something to them.
reply
share
liscarkat (16530)
2 years ago
It's always amusing when somebody comes up with deep sociological analysis of pop music intended for thirteen-year-old girls.
reply
share