Beatles '64 POSTSCRIPT |

[@brettshaver3074]

Love this channel, Matt. Thanks for all the work you put into your videos

[@popgoesthe60s52]

Thank you, Brett!

[@antoniodalfonso]

A fine video, Matt. I agree with your analysis of Apple’s dealing with finance, the Beatles legacy, and products to sell. It is difficult not to feel the weight of the task at hand. It is very expensive to say yes to all the merch being directed at us from the artists of the past. I don’t understand why there is so much duplication for the consumer to buy. Lack of Space, expenses, redundancy… is this really necessary? I bought the three box sets by Elvis… and that was great… Hank Williams… great… i believe it is time to complete the discography and let other artists move forth… Too much of one thing can become dangerous… Was this not what Lester Banks was hinting at?? A change is needed… Thank you, Matt! You seem fine… good work.

[@Tony_Kosinec]

I was 16, living in Canada when JFK was killed and the Beatles arrived and i can say that I explicitly, consciously felt this connection between the two. They both were about the same dream, the first for America and the second for the world. The Beatles where a healing, the appearance of the same light of hope (be it naive or real) - and their music articulated something then recently planted in the culture but ripped away.

[@jesusislukeskywalker4294]

have you heard of tavistock

[@greenatom]

All I ask is "Gimme Some Truth."

[@cyeamaculture8486]

Nice room you have there.. good to see a different view

[@popgoesthe60s52]

I sometimes try to change it up a bit. Thanks for watching.

[@SusanBlakely-pd6mp]

Love this channel! The JFK to Beatles thing is obliquely referenced in the film Stardust from 1974, which shows Jim, the hero, ( an obvious amalgam of John and Paul) watching the US in mourning on TV after the assassination. Shortly afterwards, his group conquer America in 64. It's implied that there's a connection between the two things, otherwise, why mention America being under a cloud in 63? The book of the film was written by Ray Connolly, a Beatles hack, so it's probable the idea was floated by him, fictively at least, before Bangs.

[@popgoesthe60s52]

Thank you Susan, for that reference to Stardust!

[@profile2047]

It’s weird when someone’s voice is miked to the point you can hear every last detail in them swallowing.

[@popgoesthe60s52]

Yeah, maybe I had the mic to close. I'm actually trying to be not-weird.

[@rickdrais9737]

Personally, I wish they had simply done a completely new total restoration of The First U.S. Visit in 4K, including whatever they were unable to get the rights to for the initial release and the DVD version

[@BaconTomatoCheese]

Yes - wouldn’t that be great! Their performance in Washington was on fire! Just wish there was better sound to go with it!

[@cacotty9035]

Hey Matt -- I saw the Beatles in '65 at Comiskey Park (Chicago) and I was 9 in 1963 when Kennedy was killed, and when you mentioned the original article that linked the Kennedy assassination with the Beatles, I finally felt an ah-ha moment. Here's the thing -- as a nine year old, Kennedy was killed on a Thursday, I think, and as young kids, we couldn't WAIT for all the maudlin newscasts/rotunda footage/funeral footage to be OVER that weekend. Sorry to say, the youth moved on pretty quickly and the first time you heard the Beatles singles, well, there was absolutely no connection between the end of sadness and the beginning of the total love affair for the boys from Liverpool! I was wondering myself how the link between the two events happened, as I lived it and at the time, there was no conscious sadness going into '64. Call it callous, but we were young and looking forward, not backward, and as you said, the adults weren't into the movement at all. I am, however, really glad to know it was in the 70's that this elusive link was made between the two events by some author, not organically in the society like we've been made to believe.

[@buzzsmith8146]

Thanks, Matt. As usual, I enjoyed your presentation. God bless you.

[@shyman99]

Next they'll blame John Lennon's tragic death for the 80s British Invasion & Duran Duran. 🙄

[@Doctor_Robert]

Weeeell... there was a Bangles documentary on VH1 in the early 2000s in which Susana Hoffs very strongly connected John Lennon's death with the formation of The Bangles... (and it makes sense because... black Rickenbacker)

[@erichoehn8262]

“We were just a band who made it very, very big, that's all” John Lennon

[@RonaldBrown59]

I was underwhelmed by the Beatles 64 as well, but I know going in there wasn't a whole lot they could ad to the story. As far as the JFK theory is concerned, I'm not sure it related to Beatles success in US. After all they were successful everywhere else in world, in places where JFK wasn't as important or well liked. Great video Matt, thanks for sharing.

[@stevecloutier8673]

Just wanted you and your viewer for pointing me to the Bangs essay. I'm writing a book on 70s television detective shows, and I can use the Bangs essay in my introduction.

[@popgoesthe60s52]

Hey Steve, best of luck on your book!

[@milorenfield8776]

In an interesting coincidence, in the back of the issue of Time magazine that covered the Kennedy assassination was one of the first articles about the Beatlemania then sweeping Britain.

[@John_Fugazzi]

Lester Bangs was always ab rasive - that was his style and he loved dissing and cutting down rock stars. He was one of the few critics who loved Lou Reed's Metal Machine Music and ended up a huge fan of the punk scene. The fact that he thought historically and culturally made him more interesting than the usual critics. The JFK/Beatles thing sounds right at first but you have to remember that the gloom was mostly felt by the adults and they were not part of Beatlemania. Kids - who were the fans - were shocked in late November but moved on quickly as kids do. I remember Christmas '63 being pretty normal then everything changed in January.

[@popgoesthe60s52]

Very well put John. His historical and cultural references DO make him far more interesting, even if he goes to far for some people's taste. I appreciate the comment.

[@ashevillekathy]

To me, who was born in 1950, the Beatles success had nothing to do with Kennedy’s assassination. I was 13, I was devastated by it but was not dwelling on it 3 months later. We moved on. I think the connection is a lame excuse to try to deny the Beatles extreme talent and genius, as if they wouldn’t have made it except for this or that. Why is it so hard to see genius when it hits you in the face? Jealousy? Cynicism? We were lucky to be alive in the time of a miraculous appearance of true timeless artists. The excitement they created with their original, authentic joy and ability was just impossible not to feel. It was them, always them, not other madeup “explanations” of the phenomenon.

[@jerrypotente872]

Very good show Matt and I am sad to say that I agree with Mr. Banks’s comments and some of your own that finish up the episode. as a kid who heard and fell in love with the Beatles at eight years old in 1964 and then went out and bought every Beatles album on vinyl and wanted to hear every fact of trivia about the four fabs I have to admit that after about 1973 I saw that the sun was much greater than the parts and whatever strange chemistry made them soak together as a quartet and with the help of Epstein and the great George Martin it just was not there in their solo careers oh yeah, there are very memorable songs by all four of them, but it just did not sustain the way all of those brilliant albums they did as the Beatles did. I was very disappointed and disheartened when I finally came to that conclusion and as I got into progressive rock and jazz fusion I realize that the virtuosity of many musicians in the rock genre and beyond in the 70s far exceeded with our lovable lads from Liverpool were capable of to this day. I love the Beatles as a unified entity, but don’t ask me to like most of their solo work they were up the 60s, but not really beyond that. That’s a sad but true opinion maybe many of your fans will disagree. Maybe you will disagree but that’s where it is for me man I went on to check out jazz and like I said, progressive rock in fusion and many other forms of music, including Chinese And Bolivian classical stuff OK man sorry for this long winded rant. You’re doing great work brother. Keep it up and have a very successful new year your friend in NYC Jerry Potente 872.

[@jerrypotente872]

I meant that I meant that the sum of the parts was greater than the individual members on their own.

[@SusanBlakely-pd6mp]

What a great video, I love this kind of stuff, but ...I think the JFK-Beatles trope was in currency before Bangs, before the Big Bang.....I think Tony Jasper used to peddle it, way before 75. Some UK Beatles windbag - Ray Connolly or the aforementioned Jasper -deffo floated the idea before 75. I will research and get back, Loretta.

[@popgoesthe60s52]

Thank you for that... I will have to look into Tony Jasper's writings. Thank you so much Loretta!

[@tommaloney3938]

on the JFK thing.I was in 6th grade.I didn't care about politics. I was into music. your kinda like a pet, you don't know your owner lost their job but you know their depressed. that's how it was we the kids knew the adults over us were troubled. so some kids from England with strange hair and clothes. whether you like them or not they were a diversion on the six o clock news. Veitnam, race issues, local crime and Beatles. the fact that they were a great band with great songs and management and production that cared about them,put them were they are today. so there's something to the euphoria created by the intense marketing that gave us something different to enjoy. which most people did sooner or later. I agree with you and thanks for speaking against the F bomb! most everything is a re-hash of info we've had for years. really appreciate your channel great work.

[@popgoesthe60s52]

Thank you, Tom.

[@terryahlstrom5423]

Thanks Matt. Isn't it wonderful that people can be so passionate about a topic especially The Beatles? I think in people sharing ideas there is typically something that can be learned. My reference to all of this is being a 7 year old at the time of the Ed Sullivan Show and my sister a junior in high school 10 years older than me.That time from Nov 63 to early 64 was the first real close to home tragedy that as a youngster we really felt first hand through the grief of our parents. It did cast a pall over everything. It certainly did in Minneapolis,even for a 1st grader. My perception now is the U.S was looking for something to change the tone of something that was way too heavy and inconceivable in a time when it took alot more time than just a News cycle to go on to the next thing.Just a couple of extra thoughts:... I saw a fact one time that at the time The Beatles were hitting in the states that there were more 17 year olds than at anytime in U.S history ,also I know through the years I have had reference on more than one occasssion, either through reading or seeing video, Leonard Bernstein telling the story of seeing the Beatles wth his daughter and his respect for what they were doing.....Would The Beatles have been huge in the U.S without the events of November '63? Absolutely! Was the Mania helped by those events? Absolutely! Thank you for letting me comment,sorry to be so lenghty , Thank you for what you are doing. It's appreciated!

[@popgoesthe60s52]

I appreciate the comments and support - thank you, Terry!

[@4-dman464]

1975, that fits. Post-Watergate, the Kennedy era got a revamp in the culture. The 1975 Senate Church Committee glanced at the Warren Report along with dodgyCIA practices. The Zapruder Tape got a shocking public TV showing in '75. Other than PT109 JFK biopic in '63, when he was alive, there were no screened dramas about the Kennedys until December 1974. Ever since then America has averaged one Kennedy screen adaptation per year for 50 years. The 1974 kickstart was Martin Sheen in MISSILES OF OCTOBER. It was such a novelty that Kennedy speechwriter Ted Sorensen gathered some old Oval Office comrades, including Jackie Kennedy, around his TV in New York, and they watched The Missiles of October together & laughed about the portrayals. Maybe that 1975 Creem article roped in the Kennedy nostalgia & revisionism with The Beatles' demise for added topicality. Roping in various items to be topical was a contrivance of freelance writers to get placed on the newsstands. And then, alas, what was expediently topical on the newsstands in 1975 became a reference that got written into history as if that's the way it was.

[@popgoesthe60s52]

Very well-put 4-D. You bring up some important events (Watergate, Zapruder film, etc) that really put the 60s in perspective. Bangs is merely pointing this out. Thanks for the Sorensen screening - I didn't know about that but it's priceless. As always, thank you for the substantive comments.

[@4-dman464]

@@popgoesthe60s52 Cheers, Matt. If you get curious, the source book is: Ted Sorensen, *COUNSELLOR* 2008. pages 398-99. Gathered in Sorensen's NY apartment to watch *The Missiles of October* on ABC TV, 18 December 1974, were:- JFK’s sister *Jean Kennedy Smith* & hubby. former Kennedy aide *Steve Smith* ... special assistant *Arthur Schlesinger* & wife... former National Security Advisor *McGeorge Bundy* & Bundy’s deputy *Carl Kaysen* ... deputy head of US Information Agency *Don Wilson* ... *Cuban minister to the UN* ... & *Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis* . 3 of them possessed the commemorative calendar plaque that highlighted OCTOBER 1962 with 13 days emboldened in gold, given by JFK to key people in the Cuban missile crisis. So that's 2 and a half hours of 10 ppl's commentary on the 1st post-Kennedy adaptation lost to history. All Sorensen wrote was: “We all enjoyed laughing at the actors impersonating us.” There had to be some pathos present, & unspoken awareness of Jackie & Jean Kennedy, & who got drunk to get through it - - maybe everyone holding back looking for a lead till Jackie K responded - - but Sorensen wasn't telling.

[@popgoesthe60s52]

@@4-dman464 Thanks man!

[@jorgeb555]

I have to admit, all of Lester Bangs’ criticisms of the solo Beatles’ works are in some ways legit. For me, almost nothing was as strong as what the four of them together put out. Meanwhile, 84 1/2 year-old Ringo star is putting out country albums in 2025 and I love it, even if I don’t buy it. 🙏🏽🤓❤️

[@popgoesthe60s52]

Bangs wrote what a lot of "Beatles fans" don't like to hear. They don't like it because it's true. As for Ringo, he appears to still be doing what Bangs suggested in 1975: tuning ineptitude into a good natured game. I appreciate the comments, Jorge.

[@Dmy1114who]

Most of the time I never toke Lester seriously . Not only about Beatles

[@jorgeb555]

@@popgoesthe60s52 Right on! Excellent video too. 🤓

[@michaelrochester48]

Graham Nash had also claimed to have known the Beatles before they were the Beatles, but that is a little more legit because he was from nearby Manchester and he did go to the cavern quite often wolf to play to listen to music

[@mjemigh3304]

I've always been a Ringo fan, although his last several albums survived but one play in my house. I got the new one today and think it's almost really good. Almost great, in fact. I absolutely DESPISE auto-tune and pitch correction. We know that Ringo only has about eight notes that he can sing and the arrangements should have just been written that way.

[@mnbv990]

I think I like Mr Bangs.

[@70PaulK]

I think sociologists and cultural historians will be debating this many years from now- as a Brit born in 1970, I can't give an informed answer to the JFK debate, but the unique force of the Beatles suggests they would've shone regardless of the political context. If there was a void, the question would be why American artists couldn't fill it?

[@popgoesthe60s52]

Exactly. Cultural voids get filled. Thank you capitalism. :)

[@cptgunn]

So if I'm understanding correctly, what Bangs was saying was that basically without the JFK assassination the Beatles would not have made as much of a cultural impact. It's a very interesting take on things. If you study mass trauma, it does appear that the rise of the Beatles was very much orchestrated in that manner. Would they have made such an impact if, not only in just the United States but the entire world, there hadn't been that mass traumatic experience that people endured with the death of JFK? People who study this know how susceptible people are to almost anything, looking for something good, after enduring trauma. You see it after many traumatic world events. Then it begs the question, how much of it was controlled deliberately. The strange coincidences that happened regarding the release of their first and second album, the second being released on 11/22/63. Two other highly influential people also died on 11/22/63 - Aldous Huxley and C.S. Lewis. I also read in the comments section here that in the Time issue that covered the JFK assassination there was a blurb about the Beatles. Just very strange coincidences that have to get anyone thinking critically about what is exactly going on here.

[@michaeldunne3379]

You’re right to look at the Kennedy thing. It’s a theory, but Beatles ‘64 presents it as a given fact. Also, this period is already covered perfectly by the Maysles brothers film of the same time. Beatles ‘64 basically rehashes that film and adds a few talking heads. The recent success of Beatles output on Disney etc is the reason for this rushed addition. It’s weak and not worthy of them.

[@happyron]

"The Beatles became famous in America because of the Kennedy Assassination" is like most political/sociological theories: it no doubt has some truth but isn't "THE TRUTH". I first read this in the book SHOUT in 1981 and even then I thought this is too simplistic. It undoubtedly was an important part of their impact that they came in the wake of Kennedy's murder, but I don't think it was "THE" reason, after all, they were already successful in most of the rest of the Western world. There is a quote from a fan that I think was in the book Beatles Forever that I am paraphrasing "They came to give us life, nothing else could after November. "

[@cyeamaculture8486]

Indeed..the Beatles produced hysteria in the UK but maybe it went to another level in the USA because of the grief

[@happyron]

@@cyeamaculture8486 yes and maybe it helped overcome the barriers that existed to British acts. I actually enjoyed the documentary more than a lot of people as "The Beatles 64 and their impact" as it gave me a deeper understanding of how they impacted people at the time. Ultimately I'd love to see more of The Beatles themselves but the footage of the fans was fascinating to me, perhaps because I'm a singer/songwriter as well and I'm always interested in the impact of music on people

[@cyeamaculture8486]

@happyron same here mate( on all counts though I'm a now retired singer songwriter) have a good day

[@happyron]

I'm fairly certain SHOUT! is where this entered into a mass belief. The article mentioned in the video was maybe the actual start of the idea, but the SHOUT book was an important, and unfortunate, way that alot of wrong or overly negative ideas entered into the mythos. He definitely made it sound like that was THE reason, not A reason. I still remember the bad vibes from that book despite the fact I haven't read it in 40 years.

[@nigeltant]

Interesting as always Matt! I could be a contrarian here and say that because Lester Bangs was being unnecessarily harsh on the Beatles in that article doesn’t necessarily mean he was totally wrong about the JFK point, although I do believe that opinion is too simplistic and it was the broader societal change that was happening which was the fertile ground for seeds of change, ironically partly driven by Kennedy, or apparently so at the time. From this side of the pond (and it was the same in the UK in the 60s), it seemed that it was the complacency and conservatism of the music business that allowed the explosion of Beatlemania (or the so-called ‘British Invasion’). Throughout the Beatles’ career they seemed to challenge the status quo - whether that was in Hamburg, in Liverpool, in recording worthwhile albums, in recording techniques, in song writing, in film making (even Hard Days Night was revolutionary for pop films), they seemed to be doing things no one had ever done before. It was this that excited young people. I know I have said this before, but living through that in real time as a teenager was very different to the retrospective view of younger fans, although neither is worth more than the other - for instance, we now know far more about the intra group dynamics than we did then, and we were only slightly aware of the history before 1962, and this necessarily gives us a different perspective. History is always being revised, and rightly so. This is what Bangs was doing - by 1975 there was a decent amount of time to enable some retrospective views (although now it feels so close to the Beatles’ break up), and fashions also change. This was a period when the Beatles seemed like ancient history!

[@popgoesthe60s52]

I wouldn't say Bangs was unnecessarily harsh because I think that perspective was a rare one and therefore needed, if only to reset the worship meter for fans. Thanks for the comments, Nigel.

[@BaconTomatoCheese]

Really liked your first video about the Beatles ‘64 - and this is a nice addendum. I like how you’re sitting in your beautiful living room, and your dog makes a cameo! Keep the great content coming…

[@popgoesthe60s52]

I was surprised Bogie didn't join me in the chair! So glad he made the cameo.

[@jltrem]

As someone who was born in 1952 and was 12 years old in February of '64 and just getting interested in pop music of the day, I definitely recall the pall caused by Kennedy's assassination that was lifted by the advent of The Beatles emergence on the world scene. All these years later it seems incredulous that it happened a little over two months past Kennedy's killing.

[@rickdrais9737]

@@jltrem Actually, several Beatle biographies over the years commented that the arrival of the Beatles pulled the U.S. out of our grief. It wasn’t just Bangs, even though he gets the credit these days

[@jltrem]

@ I wasn’t aware of Bangs’ comment. I experienced it so I actually knew.

[@rickdrais9737]

@@jltrem I’m old enough to remember the first time I heard JFK speak and thinking it was a local TV news commentator (Tom McCall, later governor of Oregon) who had a similar accent at the time. And I also remember watching the first Sullivan performance with my dad. Don’t remember how he reacted, but my mom refused to watch. She was a Lawrence Welk fan. Oh well. But I clearly remember how sad everyone was, and hearing about the president’s death at school. Third grade.

[@jltrem]

@@rickdrais9737 I was in sixth grade. Another teacher knocked on our classroom door and told our teacher. She couldn't even tell us. She wrote on the blackboard, "The President is DEAD." We were all sent home shortly after.

[@ValerieFelitto]

Apple may seem hopeless these days but one thing i found gratifying was Paul's museum photo show touring the US last year. I saw it in NYC (home). It was so interesting..the day i was there it was packed, all ages especially 20 somethings surveying Paul's photos of the first visit..if it comes your way don't miss it.

[@BeatlemaccaAR]

I'm honestly getting QUITE fed up with the Paul bashing. This is FOUR estates making decisions so people, get a grip and enjoy the fact that he and Ringo are still among us.

[@richbailey8174]

In my find....telling the truth isn't necessarily bashing...I am huge fan of the Beatles but I am tired of Paul's actions. You can almost set your watch to about every 3 weeks when he's in the news. How many immersion sets does he release a year? Yes a lot of artists are doing the same thing but he is doing it a lot. And we really don't need the reissues of the Beatles stuff either. He could veto them but he doesn't. Alan Kozzin interviewed him a while back and brought this up to him. He referred to the oft quoted thing John said about how the Beatles refused to rip the fans off by reissuing singles on the albums etc. Paul's answer was to say he wasn't the Beatles..:) To me he seems to be about something else...

[@alanlinfield8207]

@@richbailey8174 If by "immersion sets" you are referring to the Archive series (Paul) and the Deluxe Album Reissue series (Beatles) ... well, it's been a while since we've seen anything. No "Archives" from Paul since 2020's "Flaming Pie," although many fans would like to see expanded reissues/remixes of "London Town" and "Back To The Egg" with bonus tracks and concert footage. Instead, we've gotten CD reissues of his 70s albums (sans bonus tracks), half-speed vinyl remasters, color vinyl reissues, multiple versions of Egypt Station (2018) and McCartney III (2020), and an "under-dubbed" version of "Band On The Run" (2024). Yes, some of these were a bit excessive, but only the Travelers Edition of Egypt Station could be considered an immersion set. Also, last year Paul gave us a wonderful release from the vaults, "One Hand Clapping." And the Beatles haven't given us an SDE since 2022's "Revolver" reissue, though many of us have been hoping for a "Rubber Soul" or "Magical Mystery Tour"/"Yellow Submarine" SDE. Instead, we got reissues of the Red and Blue albums in 2023 and mono reissues of the first Capitol album in 2024. It seems odd that the Beatles are putting all their marketing might behind packages they previously disowned. Maybe this year we'll get revamped releases of the Rock 'n' Roll Music and Love Songs Collections. Followed by Reel Music and the Beatles Ballads and ...

[@drebatista]

It’s 2025, people deserve truth. I literally have Beatles lyrics tattooed on my arm that downy mean I agree with Beatle Paul trying to rewrite the story so they all loves each other and he was alway nice

[@richbailey8174]

@@drebatista I think we only know what we have been fed. I have been a huge fan since 1964...read all the books...etc...luckily my wife is as into them as I am without the books...:)....years ago I separated who they are from the music itself. It doesn't matter to me whether they are "nice" or whatever. Both Paul and John are/were jerks. I think more will come out once Paul and Ringo are gone. I have predictions about what that is without sharing with people to see if I'm right...:)...I love the trivia but to me the most important thing is the music

[@andrewmacdonald3667]

Thanks for the shout-out Matt. I’m glad you were able to source the article. The Bangs collection edited by Greil Marcus includes ‘Thinking the Unthinkable about John Lennon’, which may also be of interest. 👍

[@popgoesthe60s52]

Thanks Andre, I'll check it out. And thanks again for the source.

[@rickdrais9737]

I got into reading him when he was at Creem. Probably back in college. And he wrote a glowing article in the liner notes of a John Barry/James Bond soundtrack compilation around the same time that I liked. Didn’t always agree with his album and artist criticism, but he was entertaining as hell.

[@davidcatalano3781]

God bless you ! very interesting video

[@Werockpso]

being a teenager when the Beatles hit big I can say it had NOTHING to do with Kennedy at all,I remember the time well and literally NO ONE said anything about Kennedy in regards to the Beatles music

[@drebatista]

Lester was honest and unmerciful, but that doesn’t mean he was always right.

[@lyndarosborough869]

Great review Matt … so glad you are able to find these interesting articles too and share them … I agree with your take on that recent doc … not made so well for sure … y’know I’m thinking (and I’m sure I’m not the first to say this) … that if Apple was wise they’d engage you as a consultant. Being an original Beatles fan from back in the day … it is refreshing to hear your take … and I really value your insights on where things sit today. Thanks again ! … 😎

[@popgoesthe60s52]

I appreciate that Lynda!

[@natlee8947]

I heard Paul McCartney say in a couple interviews that the Beatles coming to America right after Kennedys death had alot to do with the popularity of the Beatles. People were looking for some kind of light in such a dark time.

[@adrianmist6681]

But this is probably an example of Paul believing his own myth. He had probably read what others were saying about The Beatles and then wrote that into his own narrative.

[@adrianmist6681]

Yes Paul and Ringo are still at the helm of Apple but I'm guessing that they are probably not so interested at their age in details so much these days. I wonder if they actually watched Beatles 64, if they had it's hard to believe they actually approved it, or maybe the deal had been done before the film was complete.

[@popgoesthe60s52]

Yes, those comments are retrospective in nature with regard to the "dark times."

[@LtdNulty]

@@adrianmist6681 If you believe Frank Zappa, they (or in that case Paul) weren't interested in the business side of things in the 60es as well.

[@davederave792]

Very entertaining as always Matt! I’m sure someone else has already mentioned it but your can holder is super cool!

[@5t66t5]

I think it is an old ashtray

[@tunafish2521]

I am not sure how to enhance The Beatles history, particularly to the potential young audiences. However, I do know that putting out new singles that happen to be crap is not the way. The Beatles history should be strictly pre and post breakup minus the new singles and remixes of already classic albums. Plus, ditch Giles Martin…did they make a deal with George Martin to keep Giles in work$$? I digress, but always love your videos!

[@popgoesthe60s52]

Thank you, Tuna! I don't know how to gain younger audiences either but it would focus on the original music, meaning not the Giles Martin remixes.

[@tunafish2521]

@ I know, what made them so great was how they were able to do so much with so little. The remixes, to me, are just producer geeks trying to one up George Martin.

[@bacarandii]

Bangs was great fun to read, but he was basically a cranky reactionary, as his collection, "Psychotic Reactions and Carburetor Dung" (published in 1987), chronicles. Young folks like me, who entered our teens in the 1970s, were told that we'd "missed out" because we were born too late to have come of age in the 1960s -- you know, when all the sanctified and self-mythologized "great music" supposedly happened. By the time punk exploded in the later '70s, it was in part a response to that -- all about cynically and nihilistically tearing down the sanctimonious "hippie/flower power" idealism of the '60s (Led Zeppelin was widely considered the ultimate bloated dinosaur corpse of a band), which is something Bangs wholeheartedly endorsed. There was a real, liberating energy to punk that pop music hadn't had in years of studio-polished perfection. I don't remember when the JFK trope became conventional wisdom, but it disregards the fact that "Beatlemania" was already happening in England before they came to the US. But, yeah, Americans were understandably depressed after the young president was murdered. And the Beatles did brighten up pop culture a bit in 1964...

[@cree8vision]

The Beatles didn't just "brighten up pop culture a bit in 1964". As an 8 year old seeing them on Ed Sullivan, I knew instantly that this was the future of music and that everything was going to change, not just in music but culturally.

[@bacarandii]

​@@cree8vision That was my (failed) attempt at comically droll understatement -- in reference to the period immediately after the Kennedy assassination. Obviously, there's never been a single pop phenomenon as pervasive and transformative across all aspects of Western popular culture as the Beatles were. I doubt anything like it could ever happen again, given how fragmented and niche-driven the media landscape is now.

[@johnnhoj6749]

Sorry, but I also think that the popular impact of punk is really overstated. If you look at the UK singles charts (punk was mainly about singles) for the peak punk years you will find very few punk records near the top. The charts are dominated by the likes of ABBA and disco. Punk was very popular with a relatively few people, mainly budding musicians and the media. Photographs and magazines of the time over-represented punks as a phenomenon because they were new and visually striking. Almost no-one outside of the big cities dressed like the stereotype of the punk and very few in the cities. It wasn't long before the strikingly different New Romantics and the synth bands swept away what prominent punk bands there were. The inflated impression of punk has been perpetuated for a long time by the writers and commentators who made their reputations in that environment and are are, in many cases, still prominent voices, while most of the punk bands are forgotten and barely listened to by anyone who wasn't there at the start.

[@bacarandii]

​@@johnnhoj6749 Punk was never commercially successful -- except maybe for a brief time in the UK around 1976. But it never wanted to be. It was trying to alienate the mainstream. That was the whole point. But it had a huge influence on musicians and what we in the States called "new wave" in the late '70s and early '80s. Critics and scenesters picked up on it and exploited it, but the public never did. (Punk was about attitude and fashion as much as music -- not all that unlike disco.) From The Clash to Elvis Costello to Joy Division and all the CBGB bands (Ramones, Talking Heads, Television, Patti Smith, Devo) -- none of them would have been what they were without punk. And none of them were commercially successful for years after they first started getting media attention. It took a few years for them to find an audience, and even so, most of them never had large-scale mainstream success the first time around. I saw Tom Petty open for the Ramones in 1977 or 1978. Neither was drawing big crowds or selling many records. Ramones were considered by many to be the first "punk" band because they did away with blues-based chord changes entirely and emphasized speed and attack. They were never widely popular -- and still aren't. But everybody's heard of them, even if they've never heard them. That was part of a running joke in the low-budget Roger Corman teen exploitation picture, "Rock & Roll High School" (1979): "Do your parents know you're Ramones?" It wasn't until more than a decade later that "grunge" made "punk" popular.

[@popgoesthe60s52]

Well said bacarandii - the Beatles were already kind of a big deal in 1963.

[@Push-Pull]

You had Professor Hamamoto giving it to you straight with regards to David Whelan's 2023 book " Mind Games - the assassination of John Lennon" . I've bought the book and listened to his numerous podcasts. He is impeccibaly researched and yet you havent had him on . I feel you owe it to your subscribers to at least acknowledge his research and chat with him.

[@popgoesthe60s52]

Yes, I still want to read that book. I am very behind.

[@Push-Pull]

@@popgoesthe60s52 Its going to stun you , that's all i can say. You, of all people, should be across this.

[@cacotty9035]

Whelan's book is amazingly researched -- I heard him on a couple of podcasts and had to get the book. His documentation of all the players, the official reports, the interviews, etc. paint a much different pic than the official narrative. If you read anything about MK Ultra, taking out one man is nothing to these people. Lennon's murder was an open/shut case with little to no investigation by the NYPD. Just give us some truth, and Whelan certainly seems to deliver.

[@popgoesthe60s52]

@@Push-Pull I have also listened to several podcasts with Whelan as a guest, so this is on my radar.

[@richbailey8174]

Great as usual!

[@aunch3]

There’s no doubt that the the sum of the parts was greater than the individual when it comes to the Beatles. They weren’t the same w out the others. Sometime it seems like we still don’t know who they were really behind closed doors. The press to this day has always protected them. The brand that Apple pushes is totally ridiculous at this point.

[@joerobxy]

@@aunch3 Absolutely agree

[@martinsplichal1581]

Thanks Matt. I didn't know it was Lester Bangs was the one that first made that connection in print. Cheers.

[@nomehdrider]

Thanks Matt, I agree completely. Also, the home is lovely, is that leaded glass in the built in?

[@popgoesthe60s52]

Yes, it is. I love stained and leaded glass. This house has a fair bit of it.

[@jasontheoldmillennial7197]

I forget. Did you ever check out the movie Midas Man about Brian Epstein?

[@popgoesthe60s52]

No

[@johnshahbazz8945]

Love you Matt. Cool digs. Thanks for sharing .

[@Tommy-p1t7g]

Matt, I would love to hear your take on the new "A Complete Unknown" movie

[@michaeldunne338]

Yes, to this suggestion.

[@popgoesthe60s52]

I haven't seen it. I'm not a fan of biopics so I will give it some time before I venture in that direction.

[@Tommy-p1t7g]

Im not either, but this is one of the better ones,​@@popgoesthe60s52

[@michaeldunne338]

@@popgoesthe60s52 I would recommend checking it out. This biopic came off as different, and worthwhile to see, in comparison to many biopics. And supposedly the actors sang live in their scenes (according to the promotions).

[@peterjoslyn1]

The sixties thing, the art and idealism, could have been a version of the renaissance. But not really, sadly, in the end it was a mere hiccup. I think the relative failure of the Beatles solo careers is pretty depressing, must have seemed awful in real time. As John said ‘the dream is over’. He was right.

[@popgoesthe60s52]

I don't hear too much from "fans" who remember the solo Beatles career in the 70s as depressing. Basically, the uber fans have taken over KZbin and the podcasting world and over rated the solo years very badly and they have controlled the narrative in recent years. This channel was started to give a more critical look at their solo careers and Bang's article, though provocative, has some wonderful commentary. I agree with you about the 60s vs the Renaissance. The 1960s idealism basically ate itself.

[@wyliesmith4244]

The Beatles/JFK link sounds like college students writing dissertations. The adults in the room seem to forget that it was a teen audience, and more young teens than old, that adored the Beatles. I can only speak for we in the States - though the film that I have seen show the Beatles' audience as virtually all young teens - but the Beatles' audience was virtually confined to the under 20 set. Me among them. And teens then were caught up in the psychodramas of puberty and its effects. For most of us, JFK was already in the rear view mirror, and if you wanted the horrors of real life to drag us down , there was the Civil Rights movement - it was Robert not JFK who pushed forward on that, the Cuban Missile Crisis and Bay of Pigs, and the Viet Nam War. If one wanted to feel squeamish, look at the Life magazine picture ('63) of a Vietnamese monk setting himself on fire to protest the gowar. Hormones trump the Kennedy assassination virtually all the time. It seems like a lot of adult spculators forget what their teen years were like.

[@jesusislukeskywalker4294]

it was pretty much the day America died in many respects wouldn't you say ? looks like it . a coup d'eta .. as confirmed on 911.

[@popgoesthe60s52]

Great additions Wylie - in a sense one could blame the Beatles for the horrors of the rest of the 60s!

[@DietervonBraun1973]

well... Bangs was not wrong... even now I find it depressing to contemplate the quick artistic demise of the ex Beatles in the 1970ies, but we have had time to accept how history turned out. People in the 1970ies must have been unprepared and devastated to see what the ex Beatles had to offer from 1972 onwards.

[@popgoesthe60s52]

Bangs' work goes too far for some - especially when it involves the solo Beatles - but I agree with you, he was not wrong. Even now, Bangs' comments on the solo Beatles offend some "Beatles fans" which I find as depressing as the solo Beatles demise.

[@DietervonBraun1973]

@@popgoesthe60s52 After my initial disappointment I have learned to appreciate the solo material from 1970 and 1971, and I like the recent releases that give us the raw studio sound instead of the 1970ies Phil Spector haze. Although these records were maybe not on the Beatles level they were still in the afterglow of the golden era and give me a Beatlesque vibe, no matter their shortcomings. That started to disappear fast in 1972.

[@GonzoDuke]

That ashtray makes the perfect coaster 😆

[@popgoesthe60s52]

Ha - you noticed that! As a non-smoker, I'm glad to get some use out of it.

[@caithlin]

I didnt regconise any of the talking heads, so I really don't understand why they said this was made to bring in younger fans. It could've been more like Eight days a week, which I know a lot of people don't like but at least it had a narrative and the 'fun facts'. Took an hour into the film for them to mention Brian Epstein when I feel it should've started with Brian discussing them to Ed Sullivan.

[@popgoesthe60s52]

Good point about Epstein. A gross negligence of the man who brokered the deal to bring them to America.

[@Rollietom890]

My teen years coincided with the 60s decade. Believe me, me and my peers were way too preoccupied soaking up and thoroughly enjoying all the wonderful music that the Beatles opened up the doors for us to hear to pay any attention to what hacks like Bangs had to say about anything whatsoever. He'll be forgotten. The music he didn't understand will live on and on.

[@popgoesthe60s52]

Well, he's not forgotten yet! His cultural and historical takes gave his writing a depth and breadth that people still talk about.

[@johnalello9233]

Lots of good points I agree on what you said I've watched Beatles '64 5 times and each time I enjoyed it more and more your right Matt the people they interviewed are not going to get any more young fans unless they would have interviewed Taylor Swift or younger artist who are popular artists of today not Old geezers and right On who is running the show at Apple sometimes they don't get it! Thanks Matt great show enjoyed it!

[@SurferJoe1]

Sports fans know that the media always craves a good ..."STORYLINE!", a bit of drummed-up drama to gild the lily. Having some pre-fabricated bait for the hook is just too easy. Bangs' JFK/Beatles mash-up is neither true nor untrue; it's just some guy's perception; but at least for a few minutes it was his own. I think it's fair enough to say that 11-22-63 marked the end of something in America and 2-9-64 marked the beginning of something else. Any real connection, though...well, it's all in the mind, y'know. As for Lester Bang's other ravings, I'm reminded of the old Arab wisdom quoted by Truman Capote in a book title: "The dogs bark, and the caravan moves on."

[@stambly-s6v]

I was in first grade in the 63-64 school year. I don't recall too many adults liking the Beatles or hearing about "filling the JFK void" until many years later (post-Lester Bangs' career). I do recall my mom getting irritated when she heard the "yeah-yeahs" in "It Won't Be Long," telling my sister to "turn down those Beagles!"

[@BaconTomatoCheese]

@@stambly-s6v “Beagles”- hahaha😁

[@MisterMoccasin]

The biggest crime of the documentary was not including the song when I'm 64

[@popgoesthe60s52]

That would have been hilarious!

[@davidskidmore4189]

I agree with you about "beatles 64" was a missed opportunity, particularly since there was a good story to tell. The Maysles had told the first part of it pretty good. The Beatles landed in America in Feb, and played for Ed Sullivan and then amazingly sold out the Washington Coliseum. Artists heretofore played in theaters, and this was a pretty good size sporting arena with over 8,000 seats. The Beatles came back later that year with a tour of arenas, a new way of doing business, that created the Rock and Roll business. People exploited that later on much better than Brian Epstein did, but they made the template, and I think that is an under discussed part of their influence.

[@DoohickeyDinkle]

I'd have to agree with Bangs. Clearly the British kids were terribly upset in 1962 and early 1963 by the future event of the Kennedy assassination. When Please Please Me happened it was a great relief from their future sadness. But seriously I've read the same stupid kind of thing where the Beatles were so popular in Britain because it was a breath of fresh air from the Profumo scandal!

[@alanlinfield8207]

As we all know, Paul repeatedly told Brian Epstein that the Beatles would not go to America until there was a political assassination they could exploit.

[@johnnhoj6749]

As you say, the Profumo idea is really absurd. I don't think that younger British people were that much interested in parliamentary politics at that time. It was more likely to have struck them as a salacious scandal, if at all. It would be older conservative types who would have been more outraged by the moral and security aspects. I doubt that any of them were desperate for a pop group to come along to lift their spirits. I think of more importance was the general growth in freedom for young people. Their pay was rising, they were more able to leave home earlier, the boys were freed of National Service, the girls had more job opportunities... The Profumo affair no doubt played it's part in the general feeling that the age of deference to institutions was fading. The scene was being set for a group like The Beatles to be able prosper and have more influence but that is not the same as any particular event being a trauma which needed relief.

[@annakermode6646]

I enjoyed your post very much, thanks for the huge grin it gave me ❤

[@popgoesthe60s52]

Nicely done. Even the documentary The Compleat Beatles (and Anthology for that matter) sets up war-torn England as the beginning of the Beatles story.

[@alanlinfield8207]

@@annakermode6646 It certainly qualifies as an in-joke (but perhaps too "out there" for YT). Glad you were able to appreciate it (while it lasted)! ❤

[@timmckeown1313]

Correlation is not causation. The Beatles would have happened the way it did whether or not JFK died in 1963.

[@cyeamaculture8486]

We have no way of knowing that . obviously there was hysteria in the UK but from what I've seen and read, the Americans took it to another level..was that just a cultural thing or was it a response to grief? Who knows

[@timmckeown1313]

@ I don’t believe the tennyboppers who showed up to greet the Beatles at the airport or at the Plaza were wearing sackcloth and ashes over JFK’s assassination. There is no connection between the two events other than proximity in time.

[@BaconTomatoCheese]

@@timmckeown1313 I was born in December 1963… My mom tells me that I was actually in the room when the Beatles played live on Ed Sullivan in February 1964. Did the Beatles help us get over what must’ve been a deeply felt grief over JFK‘s assassination? I can’t speak to that personally - but I do believe that the Beatles would’ve been just as impactful in any case

[@timmckeown1313]

@@cyeamaculture8486 America always takes things to another level 😅

[@cyeamaculture8486]

@timmckeown1313 ,🤣😁👍

[@erichoehn8262]

Bang’s philosophy: be brutally honest

[@delmofritz3964]

Ringo being inept is not brutually honest. It's brutually stupid.

[@daledumke6302]

Love your work...we all should move on !

[@netmusicdotcom]

Interesting. But then, of course, there are the majority of the Beatles fans who, at the time, were too young to really be affected at all by Kennedy's assassination.

[@jesusislukeskywalker4294]

people have already forgotten the lockdown weirdness. and are now interacting with robots on youtube comments sections and don't even realise.. viewers write in to robot channels in the comments section and thank them for the video.. containing useless information. 😳 i see it every day .

[@misternewoutlook5437]

In 1975, the Beatles, the legacy Beatles, hadn't yet grown into the post-breakup zeitgeist. Just the same, Bangs is overly harsh in his assessment. When the Beatles got smaller in the rearview mirror, they got bigger in their legacy. I don't really like watching the Beatles in those old UK variety shows or even Ed Sullivan as much anymore. I don't like seeing them in very dated surroundings, because, well, it dates them. We have so much greater enjoyment of the Beatles in retrospect now than in the immediate aftermath of the breakup.

[@SaintRose2024]

If McCartney was making all the decisions on what Apple was putting out, I believe we'd have a boat load more and better material. I'm still wondering what Beatles stuff(music) McCartney has that nobody else knows about. Thanks for the video Matt. #1

[@charliewelch6859]

I was in my 20's in the 70's. As a Beatles fan I don't have much to say about the writer but sounds like bullshit to me. The movie sucked, I gave it up right after Smoky sang Yesterday. Some of the solo stuff was not as good as the 4 of them together but they did accumulate some great tracks throughout all of their album offerings

[@onlysleeping8934]

I feel the same way you do about that movie. It SUCKED

[@drewgeraci8434]

As a child, around 1974, I began understanding artists behind the popular songs, I had no idea what The Beatles was. I only knew Ringo as a fun novelty act, since the No No Song had just come out. I knew of Paul McCartney and Wings from Listen to what the Man Says, but the radio didn't play Beatles songs. About two years later, my brother had Magical Mystery Tour and I fell in love with it big time. My first purchase was Yellow Submarine, which was a major disappointment, only having Beatles songs on one side. BUT - the two George Harrison songs, Only a Northern Song and It's All Too Much knocked me off my feet! Lennon was easing away from the limelight so I had no idea what he looked like but #9 Dream was hypnotically warm ear candy.

[@delmofritz3964]

If any band could be credited to the creation of the rock critic it would be The Beatles. In otherwords - if no Beatles then no Bangs.

[@shedbythetracks]

People who have never made anything of value cannot be taken seriously as a critic. Sounds like Bangs had a lot of self-hatred to me.

[@popgoesthe60s52]

I would hardly say Bangs never made anything of value. He wrote some excellent work.

[@opticscolossalandepicvideo4879]

@@shedbythetracks he went out without any value. Living in squalor and dying by his own hand of an overdose of cough syrup and nyquil. He had a lot of self hatred and anger. Meanwhile Paul McCartney has had a legacy of optimism and love for over 43 years since the obese and morose lesser bangs went out defecating himself on his couch in squalor alone listening to the human League in his turntable which he most likely despised. McCartney 1 bangs zero and that’s the name of that tune

[@opticscolossalandepicvideo4879]

Bangs was a decent writer but he hated the world. He died in squalor self medicating and defecated all over himself in his couch. An undignified ending Very sad. And a fitting end for someone who really hated the world and bashed the Beatles

[@shedbythetracks]

@@opticscolossalandepicvideo4879 I never heard of him before today but that sounds perfect and just what I expected.

[@opticscolossalandepicvideo4879]

@@shedbythetracks he died hating the world and hating the Beatles. A contrarian to the end

[@iseeshadowseverywhere5992]

KIDS today don't care about the Beatles. I'm old I knew it 's time to move on.

[@thomasjuracek2406]

Interesting that Lester seems to have ignored the fact that the Beatles were not coming over until they had a #1 hit. The music had to sell itself before Beatlemania arrived. That should be all you need to know.

[@popgoesthe60s52]

The story that they weren't going to come until they had a number one is not true. The Sullivan show was booked well before I Want To Hold Your Hand was a hit. The booking was based on the Beatlemania in Europe.

[@robertwhitmer2712]

They were already booked for the Ed Sulivan show without a #1 hit. Coincidently, I Wanna Hold Your Hand went to #1 while they were in Paris. I've only seen McCartney claiming they weren't coming to America without a # 1.

[@wonsworld61]

@@popgoesthe60s52 their whole Australian tour was booked in Oct 63 before the American tour, for £1500 (increased to £2500) a week. It was booked before the madness fully started and Epstein kept to his word and the Beatles toured as originally agreed. Even though he was was offered £5000 a night for 5 nights in Tokyo. Similar thing happened with Nirvana. They were booked to do a few weeks on the alternative university scene. After the booking, Teen Spirit happened and the promoter made a lotta $$$.

[@Orechaser]

The movie was god awful> end of. Fallen between 2 stools again just like eight dys a week let down. The biggest success was Get Back which is 9 hours aimed at the FAN and it worked, plus it brought in lots of people on the outskirts who were completely fascinated by it.

[@cajunqueen5125]

thx Matt. 👍👍👍

[@mikeweepie5410]

Just let Mark Lewisohn into the Apple archives. His books are the best and he is apparently banned from Apple. Everything else is irrelevant. We want the whole history.

[@rogertemple7193]

This was really interesting about the connections between the Beatles and JFK's death have a nice week and thank you.🎶🎶📻🎶🎶

[@JamesMandolare]

The ideals of the sixties didn't die. These ideals are as ancient as human kindness and justice. We who were inspired by those peace and love ideals held them close to our hearts and took them out into the cold, cruel world; and, in our own small way, tried to make it better. Some were inspired teachers, or intelligent fast-food workers, or profound factory workers, or genius carpenters. Some were awesome guys making great videos in their livingrooms! :) Thanks Matt. You are always great.

[@CarolYannes]

The Beatles’s solo work did offer the great album and great song every once in a while but their solo efforts were and never will be considered as great as their work as the Beatles.

[@michaelkenny7467]

Matt, out of left field as it were, maybe the time has come to take up the subject of The Rolling Stones. Just a thought…

[@popgoesthe60s52]

I will be delving into the Stones at some point so it is getting near.

[@opticscolossalandepicvideo4879]

Agree Let’s move to the stones and Dylan. Dylan is fertile territory and a fascinating life The Beatles are always interesting but over saturated and over told.

[@yes_head]

This is the danger of anyone pontificating about anything in the moment, because it usually takes some time before the truth comes into focus. But yeah -- Bangs, Robert Hilburn... these were all guys who decided that unless it could be directly connected back to either the Velvet Underground or Howlin' Wolf then it was crap. And yeah, the level of cynicism running through their reviews was nauseous.

[@popgoesthe60s52]

Yeah, Bangs does fall into the punk hole he dug for himself. His personal tastes seem to steer him to far in one direction, which I think is a fair criticism.

[@irishsox1]

For those that have read Bangs or about Bangs, he wanted rock & roll to stay stuck in the mid 60’s garage band era, no big acts, no commercialism, just basic rock. To him, that was pure rock & roll. I get it, but at some point if something is good, it will become popular & the band will eventually leave the garage.

[@jonvought700]

I think this is the explanation for a lot of critics' love of the Ramones.

[@wyliesmith4244]

Poor Lester. Te Clash moved on to reggae influences, Siouxsie started goth, Johnny Rotten became John Lydon of PIL. members of the Buzzcocks were among the first to start (the more musically intriguing) post-punk.... As you say, they left the garage.

[@onlysleeping8934]

Apple has absolutely gotten more things wrong than right. I've been a Beatles fan since 1970. I'm now 60 yrs.old & like you I don't buy much Beatles merch anymore. Will we get Rubber Soul Box? Who knows.... but I hope so. Keep up the fantastic videos Matt! Kenny from Jersey

[@CraigCholar]

The last box I bought was the Sgt Pepper one, and I seriously doubt I'll buy anything further. I'm almost 70 and don't need to add to the already huge clutter of things accumulated over a lifetime. As they say, you can't take it with you. If I were a few decades younger I'd be an avid buyer, but now I've realized that it's all too much, for me to take.

[@popgoesthe60s52]

Thank you, Kenny!

[@CarolYannes]

Another great episode. Your videos hold up because you take great pride and great lengths to be thorough and accurate. Thanks for additional background. I don’t know what it is to be fired from Rolling Stone magazine. They had their favorites. There were artists they didn’t like. They were sexist. It’s either a badge of honor or a disgrace to have them fire someone…it’s a fine line.

[@popgoesthe60s52]

Thank you, Carol. I appreciate the kind words.

[@bucksdiaryfan]

The question I would like answered, and the one the 1964 documentary should have focused on is this -- what was it about The Beatles that made them a sensation in America when most foreign acts of the past had failed? Was their music that much better than American pop fare? Was it their presentation? Was it their comic sensibilities? Or was it a combination of all those things? I would rather hear a theory about that than some hokum about how JFK's death resulted in Beatlemania.

[@bobtaylor170]

@@bucksdiaryfan there was some truth to it. I gather you weren't alive then. Did the assassination of JFK "cause" Beatlemania? No, but there is an inexplicable Jungian quality to the timing of the events. Not being God and therefore not being omniscient, I can't go any farther than this, but many, many people sensed it at the time and in the next few years.

[@cynthiaforsythe8989]

I agree that the Beatles would’ve been just as big in America if Kennedy had not been assassinated. In fact, I can easily imagine the president inviting them to the White House, rock star to rock star! I was in fifth grade in 1963 and 1964. I paid close attention to everything that happened when Kennedy was assassinated, and it was a heavy time. But I never associated it with the joy of the Beatles bursting onto the scene weeks later. I was thinking about how the world grieved when John Lennon was murdered in December 1980. Almost the same length of time passed between John’s death and the first time the world saw Lady Diana Spencer in February 1981 and became obsessed with her. There was tremendous interest in and joy about her wedding to Prince Charles. Similar to JFK’s death followed by the arrival of the Beatles, I don’t think Diana’s intense popularity filled a void in the UK or in America left by John’s tragic death.

[@popgoesthe60s52]

That is a very interesting correlation between Lennon's death and Diana. Thank you for that Cynthia.

[@HermanoMuerte]

Congratulations on the approach of the video. Americans have an excessive egocentrism that does not allow them to see beyond their nose. The Beatles as a phenomenon would have occurred with JFK alive as well. It is true that after the death of their president, the nation needed new figures. But the musical phenomenon of the Beatles reached everywhere, from Japan to South America and exploded in all countries and their political lives were quite different. JFK's theory is to minimize the revolution that was generated after World War II in the youth of the world who needed a paradigm shift. On the other hand, Lester's note is very resentful as you point out. However, let's look at where the Beatles are today. While poor Lester died at 33 years of age of an overdose. There was a cruelty in the 70s with the new waves where apparently it was cool to discredit the stars of the past.

[@popgoesthe60s52]

Thank you for the comment, Hermano.

[@yes_head]

Excellent comment. 👍

[@davidgrady3408]

The first time I heard the jfk reference was Paul gambaccini putting it to Paul mccartney who disagreed and said nah we were just a really good r and b band. Watching that narrative none of the adults who were rightly shocked by jfk were beatles fans ,their kids were. Maybe the distinction between them and us which came between the babybommers and their parents in Britain translates to America

[@davidrobinson2776]

For me, Plastic Ono Band and Imagine were and still are the greatest albums of all time. In 1975 I discovered John Lennon, thanks to my late mother. I knew nothing of Beatles until my Dad told me about them a year later. That blew my mind. I have witnessed genius in Van Gogh, Marlon Brando, Diego Maradona, Leonardo da Vinci etc. but, to me, John Lennon was the greatest of them all, simply because he gave me hope.

[@adrianmist6681]

The problem with many US commentators, not including you Matt, is that they are often inward looking, they tend to overestimate their own country's importance and significance. The Beatles were big all over the world, including the USSR, where western pop music was banned! As for 60's pop culture withering and dying in the mid 70's, the facts are that people grew up and a new generation of youngsters had their own rock idols to worship.

[@popgoesthe60s52]

That is a good point Adrian and I think that American Beatles fans, who eventually wrote much of "their story" put themselves in the story far too much. It's much harder to assess if you are too close to the subject. Thank you for the kind words, too.

[@bobtaylor170]

Matt, I was aware of the JFK/Beatles link probably from the early 1970s, when I was 18, 19, but I had no idea that anyone else sensed it. I needed the perspective of young adulthood to grasp what had mystified me at age 11. But get this: do you know which American magazine had the first significant article, maybe the first article at all, about The Beatles? TIME, in their November 22, 1963 issue. It's even possible that Kennedy, who tore through all the major newspapers and magazines, saw the article. Life is quite strange.

[@erniericardo8140]

Insigjtful video Matt -Being that I was born just as the 60's ended, most of the information Ive always got were from people that actually lived through these times and hearing their thoughts and memories, or by watching documentarys about the 60's, its always interesting to hear about JFK, The Beatles, The Vietnam War , the moon landing, Woodstock, etc. - But Ive always noticed how different this country was before JFK got assasinated. It seemed like people were very united, everybody believed in what the leaders were saying and inspired so many Americans with aspirations and dreams of a better world, and after JFK was killed, this traumatic event seem to have changed things, nothing was the same again (along with MLK and RFK) it seemed like many lost their faith in our leaders and people become more cynical of our government. I dont know if people from that generation look at those times of JFK or other events in the 60's with rose tinted glasses, but the youth afterwards seemed to put more faith in what Rock stars of 60's were saying, (when Lennon said that The Beatles meant more to the youth than religion ) it even seemed like Dylan, Lennon, and even The Stones or The Doors had more influence on the youth and it almost seemed like these artists were a big threat to the powers at be of those times. So I do see a before & after JFK was killed how everything changed culturally, and (with that connection) how The Beatles played a big part afterwards in the 60's.

[@alanfunt4013]

Yup and yup. On the money as always Matt.

[@frugalseverin2282]

I think it was unfair to attach all those sociological changes to The Beatles. They were a symptom of their time, not the source. They were big money-makers, a lasting influence on popular music, yes. That's why music companies and media kept trying to pin The Next Beatles label on so many groups such as the Bee Gees, Bay City Rollers, Klaatu and so on. As for Apple releases I think they don't want to release definitive versions of The Beatles catalog so they can keep on selling product into infinity. Just give us official remixed first 4 albums with clarity, don't tweak them for "today's audience". Make them of lasting value and not disposable cash-ins.

[@cree8vision]

It has to be remembered that in 1975, Lester Bangs writing for Creem in Detroit had the attitude that rock n' roll was all about rebellion and getting back to basics. A point of view that was considered relevant and forward thinking by the late 70's when punk became all the rage. He had no time for sentimentality in music which I think now was an overreaction to the times.

[@PartTimeBuddhist]

I forget where I read it, but I once saw someone call Lester Bangs "a great writer with terrible taste in music." He loved taking shots at Elton John (among others), but I'm glad to see you're a fellow fan, Matt - and yes, Blue Moves has some sleeper gems on it, damn it! Anyway, while I agree that the JFK/Beatles connection has been overblown, I disagree that there is ZERO connection. I remember Dick Clark talking about playing "She Loves You" on American Bandstand in September 1963, and the audience rated it in the low 70s - not very good. He said they thought it sounded like rough Buddy Holly. They just weren't in the mood for it yet! That's my take. Sure, the lack of promotion was a bigger factor, but part of me thinks American kids just had no need for some British band imitating "their" music ... until the mood changed. Will anyone ever be able to prove it for certain? I also doubt Lester Bangs' essay was the first ever mention of the alleged connection, but it might, however, have been the most cantankerous.

[@bobtaylor170]

@@PartTimeBuddhist Dick Clark said the kids actually laughed at The Beatles during that show.

[@rogerrude313]

Matt, you need to do a video on The Hollies, The Searcher, The Seekers and Johnny Rivers. Hope to see them in the future.

[@joerobxy]

Personally, I think the quality of The post Beatles "Beatles" music was patchy, whereas their Beatles songbook is unrivalled. Without each others contributions as a band (group) together, they'd never have made it big like they did. They were a gestalt phenomenon. The arc of their global explosion followed the arc of the "Sixties" of fame - 63-70. Sure enough, their post Beatles "Beatles" musicological and historical significance TODAY is STILL largely based on their 62-70 songbook. Sure too they wrote some great solo songs and plenty of solo bummers, whereas their Beatles songbook is Fabulous. As for JFK, YES, timing may have initially been key, but once established in the USA and globally, the songs (and their manic groupthink Golemic, monstrous, comedic impact), stood on it's own two feet, producing first immature mania, then a more mature, critical assessment and reassessment once the "sixties" took flight. Eventually, even after the idealism of that decade faded into the ultra capitalistic future we now are sadly experiencing, The Beatles 62-70 legacy is secure and the FABULOSITY of the FOURSQUARE GOLEM will never die! YOUR CHANNEL continues to be the most discerning Beatles podcast on the Internet, without doubt.

[@popgoesthe60s52]

Thank you, Joe - that is very kind of you to say.

[@laurameme-9]

I remember the first time seeing an association to the JFK assassination in the Beatlemania Broadway stage show in 1979. The show was a multimedia Beatles tribute that opened with a short rock and roll film - beginning with a bit of Bill Haley's Rock Around the Clock and ending with the Dallas motorcade, gun shots, and a closeup photo of Jackie in her pillbox hat which changed from color to black & white and then faded to black, which then gave way to screams and the appearance of the live 'Beatles' actors playing I Want to Hold Your Hand. It was pretty dramatic. I'd never made that connection before.

[@markjamesmeli2520]

After watching funerals and memorials and political speeches for a month and a half after Kennedy was murdered, America's youth was ready to rock and roll again. What better than the Beatles to help out?

[@Corleone1891]

Fantastic video. Thank you so much. Also, where did you get that shirt? I have to have one.

[@popgoesthe60s52]

That was a Christmas gift from my wife. The tag says Banana Republic.

[@Corleone1891]

@popgoesthe60s52 thanks dude!