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.
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.
"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. "
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.
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)
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.
Beatles 64 was an insult to The Beatles musicianship- their arrangements , harmonies, chords - it was all about feelings and a made up story about JFK. The doc was also an insult to Brian Epsteins hard work getting the Beatles to the US…..and the icing on cake is it’s Beatles 64 Doc, and we have songs from 1965 and Yoko…just that alone is an insult to the Beatles 64 legacy.
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...
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.
@@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.
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@@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
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
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.
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!
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.
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.
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. 🙏🏽🤓❤️
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.
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
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.
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…
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. 👍
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
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.
I have not the remotest idea of how Ringo is "inept". It may well be that it was the critic himself, Lester Bangs, who was inept. Physician, heal thyself. As far as Lennon marrying Yoko as a move to "climb the cultural ladder", well, Lennon realized (with her help and influence) that pop music was not the be all and end all of cultural evolution and social enlightenment. Time has shown that Paul was a much stronger songwriter than Sir Elton - even without the lyrics of the great Mr. Taupin ! The Beatles would have taken America by storm and spead the good vibes, even if JFK had not been killed. In fact, it would have been even more joyous. The conspiracy theorists could have a field day with the US release date of Meet the Beatles : November 22nd 1963...
Bangs is an asshat. Far from being a strategy to "climb the cultural ladder" it was an act of courage for Lennon to marry outside his race. Plus where is Lennon climbing to? He was one of the most popular and successful people in the world. In otherwords at the top of the social ladder.
Also, it has to be remembered, Lennon marrying Yoko in 1969 was controversial - as mixed marriages in the U.S. especially amongst celebrities was still pretty rare. Plus marrying a Japanese woman was considered by some older generation folks to be a step down in status. (Not my belief but it was an attitude at the time.)
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Cierta vez que los Beatles hacían su gira Por EEUU, un periodista le preguntó a John: *'Te gusta que la gente los ame tanto en cada ciudad que llegan?'* , y John le respondió: *'Sí, sobre todo en Dallas'* 🤭
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.
One comment you made was interesting, because I had thought the same thing about a different documentary altogether. You said the Smoky Robinson (who is an old man with a ton of memories) can be forgiven about misremembering when he first met the Beatles, but whoever edited the film should have left that part out. In 2011, a box set of Laurel & Hardy films was released, and it included a documentary tribute to the comedy team. Celebrities like Dick Van Dyke spoke on camera about them, and when it got to Jerry Lewis, he told a complete fabrication about Oliver Hardy never having been in movies until he was teamed with Stan Laurel, when in reality, he was in about 3 times more films. Whoever edited the documentary should have left that part out.
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.
Well number one Lester Bangs was totally full of shit…I remember that era of “Rock Critics” ..it started in the 70’s really maybe ‘69….I wonder if they even listened to most of the music they reviewed in that rag Rolling Stone…Bangs managed to OD way back in 1982 and he calls Harrison pathetic…. Not that I have strong opinions 😄. No I NEVER connected the Beatles big splash in America to Kennedy getting assassinated, I was 9 when they arrived Feb. 1964. I have not seen the Beatles 64 Doc…I really can’t bring myself to seek it out on Disney…or get that channel again, I LOVED the GET BACK Jackson Doc watched the whole 9 hours probably 3 times but I can tell by the description with all the interviews and redone concert footage that 64 redone is just going to disappoint me. Your review of it is probably close to how I would feel. I have watched the Washington DC concert from 64 many times on youtube, it’s great despite the dicey sound…nice and raw.
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
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.
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.
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.
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!
I remember the first time seeing an association to the JFK assassination in the Beatlemania 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.
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?
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.
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.
As for the Beatles ‘64, I think the majority of people were wanting a full day by day of their trip to the US with footage of how they were first covered in the US media, their arrival, interviews, entire performances….in depth day by day. Instead we got boomers talking about their favorite subject….themselves.
I remember reading that article in Creem when I was in high school and and I didn't buy into it at all. It was just a writer searching for an original angel. Thanks Matt
I've heard his name and of his admiration of the MC5 for decades, but I never made an effort to know more about Lester Bangs. I had the impression he was mostly attitudinizing about pop music. Surprised to find myself mostly agreeing with what you read of his writings. Interesting.
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.
They've just had the laughable Epstein biopic - is anyone seriously excited about the 4 Beatles individual biopics which we have to assume will have it's DEI casting and considerations taking precedence over historical accuracy, to appease (comfort) modern audiences? As I said before, Apple Corps. is trying to figure out how many ways they can skin a dead cat and its not working out well - the legacy is always going to be there regardless (it's called The Beatles recording output from 1962 to 1970), though a little of the gloss has been tarnished over the past 30 years or so sadly.
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.
If you're over 30 years old, and know history, you'll figure the Kennedy/Beatles connection...eventually. But, nothing like an egghead's attempt at political humor, I guess. As for the documentary, It sounds, and looks, like material we've all seen before, but hopefully, Apple won't "force" another one too soon.
The Lester Bangs collection, PSYCHOTIC REACTIONS AND CARBURETOR DUNG, edited by Greil Marcus, is well worth reading. He was, rather like H. L. Mencken, a pretty witty writer. His pose as an obsessive Lou Reed fan even amused Lou Reed; no small achievement.
I did freelance movie reviewing for a local indie and was assigned the Creem documentary, which I jumped at, largely because of Lester Bangs. If you haven't seen it, it's a treat. Movie reviewing is not as fun as one one would think -- after about the third or fourth watch, hardly any film is "fun" anymore -- but I still (mostly) enjoyed it.
Also, for what it's worth: Lester Bangs was a Boomer, born in December of 1948. So, he had just turned 15 when the Beatles came to America in February, 1964. He died in 1982 at age 33. Just like Jesus.
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
Interesting topics, Matt. Used to read my brother’s Creem mags. Bangs was a colorful character but often went for clever takes over substance. Like Hunter Thompson but without the insight.
Thank you for finding that, Matt! It's what I was talking about in my comment on your original video. I'm a Laurel & Hardy nut. In the late 1940s, there was a magazine article about them that had several errors. And THAT'S the stuff later writers use as research and treat it as FACT! Because we're discussing pop music which, let's face it, isn't a life and death matter, imagine how screwed up the IMPORTANT parts of our history have become. History is a big, steaming pile of crap. Maybe there was a little subliminal something that The Beatles benefitted by as a result of JFK, but NOBODY was thinking about any connection until the Bangs silliness you've tracked down. Cheers! -MJ
Nothing is more sacred than the truth. Fantasy, fiction, and collective delusion have no place in History, but as you say, "History is a big steaming pile of crap".
*YUTUBER SURCOREANA EN DOCUMENTAL ‘BEATLES’64’:* por Yei Jop Increible. La youtuber surcoreana *Elaine Kim* hizo cover de ‘ALL MY LOVING’ de The Beatles, sin imaginar que su versión sería incluída en el nuevo documental *‘BEATLES’64’* recién estrenado en Disney+. Elaine subió su cover a piano el 18 de junio de 2023, cumpleaños 81 del Beatle Paul McCartney, quien vió el video junto a Martin Scorsese y demás productores y lo eligieron para incluirlo en el documental. Muchos pensaron que era la voz de la famosa Billie Eilish pero se sorprendieron al ver que era una youtuber surcoreana desconocida. Para Elaine fue la gran sorpresa de su vida escuchar su cover en el documental de los famosos Beatles. Elaine hace covers en su canal, también hizo cover de *‘BUTTER’* de los BTS. Elaine Kim nació en Seúl el 9 de noviembre de 1994 cuando se lanzó el doble CD The Beatles live at teh BBC'. Elaine estudió en el Berklee College of Music, en Boston Massachusetts, EEUU, la universidad privada de música más grande del mundo
Using Rick Beato 'metrics' it baffles me that Paul & John each are have roughly the same number of listeners on Spotify than the Beatles themselves and are not far ahead from other massive acts like The Rolling Stones and The Police. This forceful exposure of The Beatles brand is doing little to nothing in this modern race.
He was all those things but if you're honest you'd have to also include insightful, literary, philosophical, and ballsy to go against the mainstream, making him a genuine counter culture figure.
@@popgoesthe60s52 Sorry Matt but there was nothing ballsy about slamming the solo Beatles in 1975. That was pretty much the norm. And that reference to Kennedy's skull fragments...really distasteful. Maybe some of his other writings were those things you mention but this was just lame provocation.
Too bad Lester kicked in '82 and did not get to see the legend of the Beatles grow and grow. That said, I liked most of McCartney 70-75, and 40% of Harrison's output, about half that percentage for Lennon's and Ringo's stuff. All leading to Lester's diatribe in '75. I can see why he saw it that way. Pretty lofty place to come from for the "lads."
Untapped reservoir of Dylan stones and fleetwood Mac 70s stories to explore. Look forward to moving off the tired Beatles tales The Beatles stories are fairly overexposed I love the bashing of Beatles 64 cause it was goddamn garbage and embarrassing to anyone with a scintilla of historic knowledge
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.
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.
Correlation is not causation. The Beatles would have happened the way it did whether or not JFK died in 1963.
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.
"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. "
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.
“We were just a band who made it very, very big, that's all” John Lennon
Next they'll blame John Lennon's tragic death for the 80s British Invasion & Duran Duran. 🙄
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)
All I ask is "Gimme Some Truth."
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.
Beatles 64 was an insult to The Beatles musicianship- their arrangements , harmonies, chords - it was all about feelings and a made up story about JFK. The doc was also an insult to Brian Epsteins hard work getting the Beatles to the US…..and the icing on cake is it’s Beatles 64
Doc, and we have songs from
1965 and Yoko…just that alone is an insult to the Beatles 64 legacy.
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...
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.
@@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.
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.
@@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.
Well said bacarandii - the Beatles were already kind of a big deal in 1963.
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.
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.
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.
Love you Matt. Cool digs. Thanks for sharing .
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.
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.
I would hardly say Bangs never made anything of value. He wrote some excellent work.
@@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
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
@@opticscolossalandepicvideo4879 I never heard of him before today but that sounds perfect and just what I expected.
@@shedbythetracks he died hating the world and hating the Beatles. A contrarian to the end
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.
That ashtray makes the perfect coaster 😆
Ha - you noticed that! As a non-smoker, I'm glad to get some use out of it.
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!
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.
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.
I enjoyed your post very much, thanks for the huge grin it gave me ❤
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. 🙏🏽🤓❤️
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.
Most of the time I never toke Lester seriously . Not only about Beatles
@@popgoesthe60s52 Right on! Excellent video too. 🤓
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
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.
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…
I was surprised Bogie didn't join me in the chair! So glad he made the cameo.
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. 👍
Thanks Andre, I'll check it out. And thanks again for the source.
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
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.
I have not the remotest idea of how Ringo is "inept". It may well be that it was the critic himself, Lester Bangs, who was inept. Physician, heal thyself.
As far as Lennon marrying Yoko as a move to "climb the cultural ladder", well, Lennon realized (with her help and influence) that pop music was not the be all and end all of cultural evolution and social enlightenment.
Time has shown that Paul was a much stronger songwriter than Sir Elton - even without the lyrics of the great Mr. Taupin !
The Beatles would have taken America by storm and spead the good vibes, even if JFK had not been killed. In fact, it would have been even more joyous.
The conspiracy theorists could have a field day with the US release date of Meet the Beatles : November 22nd 1963...
Bangs is an asshat. Far from being a strategy to "climb the cultural ladder" it was an act of courage for Lennon to marry outside his race. Plus where is Lennon climbing to? He was one of the most popular and successful people in the world. In otherwords at the top of the social ladder.
Also, it has to be remembered, Lennon marrying Yoko in 1969 was controversial - as mixed marriages in the U.S. especially amongst celebrities was still pretty rare. Plus marrying a Japanese woman was considered by some older generation folks to be a step down in status. (Not my belief but it was an attitude at the time.)
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
@@aunch3 Absolutely agree
I was 11 in 1963, had never heard of the Beatles , when JFK was killed, and was not aware of the Beatles until Ed Sullivan.
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.
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
I feel the same way you do about that movie. It SUCKED
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.
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.
Thank you for the comment, Hermano.
Excellent comment. 👍
Cierta vez que los Beatles hacían su gira Por EEUU, un periodista le preguntó a John: *'Te gusta que la gente los ame tanto en cada ciudad que llegan?'* , y John le respondió: *'Sí, sobre todo en Dallas'* 🤭
I think I like Mr Bangs.
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…
I will be delving into the Stones at some point so it is getting near.
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.
One comment you made was interesting, because I had thought the same thing about a different documentary altogether. You said the Smoky Robinson (who is an old man with a ton of memories) can be forgiven about misremembering when he first met the Beatles, but whoever edited the film should have left that part out. In 2011, a box set of Laurel & Hardy films was released, and it included a documentary tribute to the comedy team. Celebrities like Dick Van Dyke spoke on camera about them, and when it got to Jerry Lewis, he told a complete fabrication about Oliver Hardy never having been in movies until he was teamed with Stan Laurel, when in reality, he was in about 3 times more films. Whoever edited the documentary should have left that part out.
"... the greatest of rock critics"... isn't that an oxymoron?
As if rock music is beyond criticism!
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.
Well number one Lester Bangs was totally full of shit…I remember that era of “Rock Critics” ..it started in the 70’s really maybe ‘69….I wonder if they even listened to most of the music they reviewed in that rag Rolling Stone…Bangs managed to OD way back in 1982 and he calls Harrison pathetic…. Not that I have strong opinions 😄. No I NEVER connected the Beatles big splash in America to Kennedy getting assassinated, I was 9 when they arrived Feb. 1964. I have not seen the Beatles 64 Doc…I really can’t bring myself to seek it out on Disney…or get that channel again, I LOVED the GET BACK Jackson Doc watched the whole 9 hours probably 3 times but I can tell by the description with all the interviews and redone concert footage that 64 redone is just going to disappoint me. Your review of it is probably close to how I would feel. I have watched the Washington DC concert from 64 many times on youtube, it’s great despite the dicey sound…nice and raw.
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
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.
Thank you, Kenny!
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.
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.
Thank you, Joe - that is very kind of you to say.
This was really interesting about the connections between the Beatles
and JFK's death have a nice week and thank you.🎶🎶📻🎶🎶
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!
Yup and yup. On the money as always Matt.
I remember the first time seeing an association to the JFK assassination in the Beatlemania 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.
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?
Thanks Matt, I agree completely. Also, the home is lovely, is that leaded glass in the built in?
Yes, it is. I love stained and leaded glass. This house has a fair bit of it.
Matt, you should do a series of episodes on the rise of the "rock press" in the 60s.
Good idea.
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.
The biggest crime of the documentary was not including the song when I'm 64
That would have been hilarious!
Lester's insult fest with Lou Reed in Creem was another high point
Beatles. Impeccable timing bringing the salve to sooth America's wounded soul...and what ensued . I mean wow...
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.
I think this is the explanation for a lot of critics' love of the Ramones.
As for the Beatles ‘64, I think the majority of people were wanting a full day by day of their trip to the US with footage of how they were first covered in the US media, their arrival, interviews, entire performances….in depth day by day. Instead we got boomers talking about their favorite subject….themselves.
100% spot on !
I remember reading that article in Creem when I was in high school and and I didn't buy into it at all. It was just a writer searching for an original angel. Thanks Matt
I've heard his name and of his admiration of the MC5 for decades, but I never made an effort to know more about Lester Bangs. I had the impression he was mostly attitudinizing about pop music. Surprised to find myself mostly agreeing with what you read of his writings. Interesting.
Too many Bangs for the buck? Thanks for the update Matt. Peace and love from Boomersville.
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.
Thank you, Carol. I appreciate the kind words.
They've just had the laughable Epstein biopic - is anyone seriously excited about the 4 Beatles individual biopics which we have to assume will have it's DEI casting and considerations taking precedence over historical accuracy, to appease (comfort) modern audiences? As I said before, Apple Corps. is trying to figure out how many ways they can skin a dead cat and its not working out well - the legacy is always going to be there regardless (it's called The Beatles recording output from 1962 to 1970), though a little of the gloss has been tarnished over the past 30 years or so sadly.
I don't see the 4 biopics moving the financial needle much.
Bang’s philosophy: be brutally honest
Ringo being inept is not brutually honest. It's brutually stupid.
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.
If you're over 30 years old, and know history, you'll figure the Kennedy/Beatles connection...eventually. But, nothing like an egghead's attempt at political humor, I guess. As for the documentary, It sounds, and looks, like material we've all seen before, but hopefully, Apple won't "force" another one too soon.
The Lester Bangs collection, PSYCHOTIC REACTIONS AND CARBURETOR DUNG, edited by Greil Marcus, is well worth reading. He was, rather like H. L. Mencken, a pretty witty writer. His pose as an obsessive Lou Reed fan even amused Lou Reed; no small achievement.
JFK is overrated in '64.
4:25 Quasi-intellectual 1970s takes on the 60s are the worst. ***cringe***
Bangs was in a class by himself. His verbal sparrings with Lou Reed in Creem are legendary.
Dreaming of a joint chronicle/essay/ by Bangs/Taylor (Derek of course)
I did freelance movie reviewing for a local indie and was assigned the Creem documentary, which I jumped at, largely because of Lester Bangs. If you haven't seen it, it's a treat. Movie reviewing is not as fun as one one would think -- after about the third or fourth watch, hardly any film is "fun" anymore -- but I still (mostly) enjoyed it.
I will have to check that doc out - thanks!
Also, for what it's worth: Lester Bangs was a Boomer, born in December of 1948. So, he had just turned 15 when the Beatles came to America in February, 1964. He died in 1982 at age 33. Just like Jesus.
Jesus died long before 1982.
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
Interesting topics, Matt. Used to read my brother’s Creem mags. Bangs was a colorful character but often went for clever takes over substance. Like Hunter Thompson but without the insight.
agree
Can't say I was ever much of a fan of Lester Bangs. Bangs is ballyhoo for his music journalism, but it has little merit or substance.
Fantastic video. Thank you so much. Also, where did you get that shirt? I have to have one.
That was a Christmas gift from my wife. The tag says Banana Republic.
@popgoesthe60s52 thanks dude!
Thank you for finding that, Matt! It's what I was talking about in my comment on your original video. I'm a Laurel & Hardy nut. In the late 1940s, there was a magazine article about them that had several errors. And THAT'S the stuff later writers use as research and treat it as FACT! Because we're discussing pop music which, let's face it, isn't a life and death matter, imagine how screwed up the IMPORTANT parts of our history have become. History is a big, steaming pile of crap. Maybe there was a little subliminal something that The Beatles benefitted by as a result of JFK, but NOBODY was thinking about any connection until the Bangs silliness you've tracked down. Cheers! -MJ
Nothing is more sacred than the truth. Fantasy, fiction, and collective delusion have no place in History, but as you say, "History is a big steaming pile of crap".
Thank you, MJ!
Matt, according to Lester, Brian Epstein must of been behind the grassy knoll 😂😂
Great video
I still have that magazine. The ads are fun as well.
I hope this goes viral in Beatles fan circles….to the point where Mark Lewisohn responds.
*YUTUBER SURCOREANA EN DOCUMENTAL ‘BEATLES’64’:* por Yei Jop
Increible. La youtuber surcoreana *Elaine Kim* hizo cover de ‘ALL MY LOVING’ de The Beatles, sin imaginar que su versión sería incluída en el nuevo documental *‘BEATLES’64’* recién estrenado en Disney+.
Elaine subió su cover a piano el 18 de junio de 2023, cumpleaños 81 del Beatle Paul McCartney, quien vió el video junto a Martin Scorsese y demás productores y lo eligieron para incluirlo en el documental. Muchos pensaron que era la voz de la famosa Billie Eilish pero se sorprendieron al ver que era una youtuber surcoreana desconocida. Para Elaine fue la gran sorpresa de su vida escuchar su cover en el documental de los famosos Beatles.
Elaine hace covers en su canal, también hizo cover de *‘BUTTER’* de los BTS. Elaine Kim nació en Seúl el 9 de noviembre de 1994 cuando se lanzó el doble CD The Beatles live at teh BBC'. Elaine estudió en el Berklee College of Music, en Boston Massachusetts, EEUU, la universidad privada de música más grande del mundo
Using Rick Beato 'metrics' it baffles me that Paul & John each are have roughly the same number of listeners on Spotify than the Beatles themselves and are not far ahead from other massive acts like The Rolling Stones and The Police. This forceful exposure of The Beatles brand is doing little to nothing in this modern race.
The Beatles are way behind Queen, which tells you why Apple is contemplated not one - but 4 biopics!
@@popgoesthe60s52 I hope it helps Ringo to break the 1M mark in his lifetime! 😂
Whatever was in Lester Bang’s cough syrup sure made him have some mad writing skills.
The cough syrup and nyquil killed his ass 😢. He wasn’t as smart as he thought he was
I think Bangs was inane, prolix, and pretentious.
He was all those things but if you're honest you'd have to also include insightful, literary, philosophical, and ballsy to go against the mainstream, making him a genuine counter culture figure.
@@popgoesthe60s52 Sorry Matt but there was nothing ballsy about slamming the solo Beatles in 1975. That was pretty much the norm. And that reference to Kennedy's skull fragments...really distasteful. Maybe some of his other writings were those things you mention but this was just lame provocation.
I recall the Bangs character in Almost Famous being grotesquely self-opinionated, holding forth.
Bangs was a verbose windbag who wound up overdosing when self medicating Wasn’t the sharpest knife in drawer
@@TheRealDrJoey I’d rather be Paul McCartney than lester bangs. Seymour Hoffman played him as a self loathing windbag
Too bad Lester kicked in '82 and did not get to see the legend of the Beatles grow and grow. That said, I liked most of McCartney 70-75, and 40% of Harrison's output, about half that percentage for Lennon's and Ringo's stuff. All leading to Lester's diatribe in '75. I can see why he saw it that way. Pretty lofty place to come from for the "lads."
Untapped reservoir of Dylan stones and fleetwood Mac 70s stories to explore. Look forward to moving off the tired Beatles tales The Beatles stories are fairly overexposed I love the bashing of Beatles 64 cause it was goddamn garbage and embarrassing to anyone with a scintilla of historic knowledge
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.