Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ahme]

I often read that The Beatles changed so many things and had an enormous influence on music, culture and the society. I can understand and see their influence on music and culture. But did they really change the society in a revolutionary way? Alright, boys could let their hair grow, but is that all?

[Kevin]

Nice topic.
To quote Dylan, times were a changing. I think The Beatles, because of the fame and prominence given to them by Beatlemania, were sometimes seen as the symbols or figureheads of that change. They brought things to the attention of the masses (drugs, eastern mysticism) that were already happening in the "underground" scene.
But were they personally responsible for social change? No, I think that's silly.

[Ahme]

Nice topic.

You were the only one to reply, so obviously not nice enough. But thanks for your contribution.

[Joost]

You were the only one to reply, so obviously not nice enough. But thanks for your contribution.

It's an interesting question though.

I think that The Beatles may have brought the common man and the establishment a bit closer together. It suppose it was quite revolutionary for them as working class teen idols to be royaly approved, and they more or less got away with questioning the popularity of christianity.

[AngeloMysterioso]

I would side with Kevin on that issue. George Martin summed it up nicely on the Anthology, when said something like The Beatles were of their time. True: they did surf up on the 60’s peace and love waves effortlessly; embraced the eastern mysticism renewal (for some of them); grew long hair and wore afghans. However, towards the end of that decade, they did back up from the overwhelming New left Ideology (John revisited his political position, later on – albeit for a quick season).

[Ahme]

Thanks for your replies. Could one say that The Beatles made people more aware of underground feelings, rather than being the source of change themselves?

[Mairi]

I think they were more of a reflection of the changing attitudes in society than they were catalysts for change. They definitely popularized some underground ideas and brought them into the forefront. But in most cases of societal change, it's the little people and not celebrities who really make a difference.

[modfinger]

I don't think so. This is a question I may ponder for a while. A fundamental change in society would be the result in a multitude of events, possibly catastrophic ones, and not by one individual or groop. Would we have gone to the moon and as a spin-off developed micro-electronics if Kennedy had not set the moon as a national goal? Probably. Ask yourself what society would be like if the Beatles had not existed and therein your answer.

[Jane]

I think they did change society. Not radically, but nevertheless. They were ordinary guys from Liverpool with a working class background who suddenly found themselves in London and became the center of attention, their music was listened to by all sections of society, they sang about all kinds of things and were received by the Queen and given orders (?). Many in Britain considered it unacceptable being very superior, but the ceremony took place. I think the Beatles contributed to blurring the line between the working class and the middle class. And all the rest has already been mentioned by the other posters.

[Bobber]

I think the Beatles contributed to blurring the line between the working class and the middle class.

Well, they did for you.