“All truth goes through three phases: First it is ridiculed. Then violently opposed. Finally it is found to have always been self evident.” - Schopenhauer (paraphrased)
@@aa697 They outgrew the "show biz/entertainment culture" but gained so much more. You know that Dick Clark didn't see anything in The Beatles in '63. Only when they had become a phenomenon did he pay attention to them on Bandstand. He doesn't wear that well.
With that non-response? They clearly didn't like the look, but gave them permission to look how they wanted. How gracious of them. And 192 people liked that comment?
If you think about it at that particular time music videos didn't exist so saying something like that was new. Plus this is when Sergeant Pepper came out. They had an entirely different look. It looked like adults with facial hair. The Beatles were trendsetters back then and everybody tried to look like them. It wasn't much longer after that but the hair became longer and the beard started growing. It really is interesting to see the reaction compared to how things are today
Comedian John Mulaney in 2017: "Huh, none of the Beatles had mustaches, but then one day, all of them had mustaches. That's weird, I can't think of a time a group has done that."
@@Mokkari77 they all grew moustaches for the Sgt pepper cover, to get away from the old mop top image, it was all McCartney's idea that group was Sgt pepper
Not everyone thinks Strawberry Fields is great. You have to remember at that time people did not see celebs all the time like today. It was probably the first time they had seem them in a while and they looked totally different. It would be the first thing that stood out.
@@jerrypeters2095 yeah, I get it, and it was the first time they had been seen in a while as they went on an extended break following the release of Revolver and their final tour. I just find it humorous that they get hit with a song unlike anybody had ever heard before and the majority of these kids are shocked over a few mustaches.
The Shape You also have to realize that during this time period great songs were being cranked out almost weekly. It really was a golden age of creativity.
The Beatles attracted newer fans, with these changes. Older teens/young adults. Smarter, hipper. Most of these kids here,can just groove to Hermans Hermits. 😎
@@bigheadfred Yup but no one wants to look like Mike Love. The majority of the men in the clip have long hair cause of The Beatles. And a few months later all those young men would like to dress and look "weird" cause of The Beatles.
Kids in 1967 saying the Beatles were old news.. whilst sitting there with ear lengh hair, pin-down collars, waistcoats and bob cuts like it was still 1963
Old Skool Fool , The Beatles music is alive and going strong in 2019. Some of the kids are obviously stupid. I watched my 3 year old granddaughter last night and she loved their singing. When they had facial hair, they grew up and changed their look. I would hate to meet some of these assholes. I always loved my Gorgeous George. I wonder if these kids still look 17. I wish I did. People change and grow up.
The four of group were dealing with the death of Brian Epstein, rumblings of Paul is dead, Jimmy Nichols having tried insinuate himself into the group and failed with the backlash against John's remarks on historic Jesus.still lingering. This video shows their true artistic influences and unfortunately some cracks of growing up and apart! No conforming dress code, even for "The Beatles" as when Brian incistenced[He's dead]?
I'm 41. The first time I heard Strawberry Fields Forever was when I was 6 years old and it was on a jukebox at a pizza shop. I remember hearing the fade out/in at the end being very scared. It was spooky. And yet, I couldn't wait to hear it again. Then of course as I got older and really began to appreciate the Beatles and love all their music, well, it's now one of the great masterpieces of the 20th century. That's what great art is. It's beyond music. It scares you or makes you a little uneasy when you first see or hear it, but by 20 years later you're addicted to it.
Beatles lost so many fans after John's "bigger than jesus" comment. Probably one of the reasons they had to change their image and act. The guys were younger than 30 and masters by then. Crazy
@@bassinblue I read in one of the Beatles books I have that a study was performed after John said that and everyone burned all their Beatle records. Within the next few years, they'd all be purchased back. The Sgt Pepper era aimed at a different crowd than She Loves You, no question about it. But by 1970 they were the biggest frigging thing in the world and it didn't matter..... they had resold every album they made twice over. If anything, you can credit John for a brilliant marketing plan.
Considering it’s the closing number on the album, you get eerie silence in your room/house after the song’s final chord fades out...... just imagine buying that album and listening to it all the way through the first time. It wasn’t Twist And Shout closing their debut album getting everyone in a great mood...... the house went silent after John sang depressingly about reading sad news in the paper and an out of tune orchestra played a psychedelic warped crescendo. I’m quite sure no one in the house said a word for 5 minutes after that. Yikes!!
I was 10 years old in 1967. My school library actually had a copy of "Sgt.Pepper" and I was the first kid to check it out. I kept it for almost a month and had to pay a dollar fine. The Beatles are WAY MORE revered now than they were in the 60s. By 1973 if you were still listening to the Beatles, you probably took some ribbing from your friends for being "behind the times." I'm 62 now and still love the Beatles. Their music is timeless.
I remember seeing their performance of 'Penny Lane' on TV back then at 12 yrs old. I was mesmerized. Good timing for me: I got to enjoy their pop sounds when I was a child, then matured as they went to produce the good stuff as I followed along. . . . .
Trend setters are almost always laughed at in the beginning. Within 6 months from this telecast the entire youth movement started to dress like the Beatles including the length of their hair and even facial hair. The fact that most of these kids mocked the greatest 45 record that's ever been recorded shows how far ahead of the game the Beatles really were. Miles ahead of everyone else.
This is a GREAT example of how pop culture moves the public and creates the trends. Fascinating. Innovators and trend setters who aren't afraid to try something new will always be looked sideways at to begin with, as you can hear with the kids' initial reactions. But genius is rewarded with imitation.
They just couldn't comment on the music because they didn't understand what they were listening to. It was wildly different. This is what "mind-blowing" means when we talk about The Beatles impact on the 60s.
I mean, to their defence this was probably the first “psychedelic” song these kids had heard. It was completely alien specially for people used to pop idols and bubblegum bands.
This is an amazing pairing of clips. Despite what some other commentators have written I'm going to cut this audience a lot of slack: The survey shows the fan loyalty to the Beatlemania era band without true awareness that it had come to an end months before. Then the 2nd one is the immediate reaction of the same type if not the same teenagers, after viewing a very artsy avant-garde video a good dozen years before avant-garde videos come into vogue; starring their heroes not looking or sounding anything like the Fab Four. And they were supposed to give deep insightful observations in front of millions of people, seconds after having their concept of the Beatles completely upended?
The only disappointment was that they didn't talk about the music and that was what the Beatles were trying to do. In England the story was different. Hello they stopped touring, that means they are going to put out better records. The Beatles should have communicated better that they were going to focus on the music more, and experiment more in the studio.
@@CaseyVan I don't know - keep in mind that they were getting pestered since 1966 with rumors of their breakup. Critics were already calling them washed up because people were accustomed to getting three albums from them every year. Then all of a sudden they go from August of '66 until well into 1967 with nothing. For many, their image had been hurt by the "Jesus" comments earlier that year. The Beatles of course were waiting to unleash their masterpiece (Sgt Pepper) in June, which became the biggest album of the entire generation as well as the ultimate f-you to all of the doubters. I'd say it ended up working out pretty well for them.
Lmfao your math is all over the place. Most of them would be born in the early 50s as I said heard ages 15 and 16 often, and they would be in their late 60s and early 70s now. Not anywhere close to 80s.
Now they're in their late 60s/early 70s and paying $300 a ticket to see Sir Paul McCartney, and complaing about how bad new music is compared to the music of their youth, like the Beatles. But at least Sir Paul doesn't currently have a mustache.
How were the Beatles so ahead of their time? How did they know what they were doing would work so incredibly well? Just about every single song still holds up today. These guys were so smart and so innovative, people actually believe they were created by the government. Imagine being so incredibly gifted and talented, people believe your fake. My true heroes forever and always.
Even then, the government at every level, had a rather weird control on people's psyche. The Info-China Independence Conflict against Japanese, French< USA and pro-imperialist of homegrown variety was about to round the corner> I remember either john or George commenting on Vietnam in 1965. Iran. Syria. Libya. Afghanistan. Russia. CCP. like Sitting Bull, needs to heel on command? A new republic needs to come to America, a multi-party, spectrum something? But that may not come about before the economic Armegedon!!
I watched this on our family's black and white TV when I was 10 years old. I loved The Beatles new look. The version they showed of "Strawberry Fields Forever" was not the same one that ended up on the "Magical Mystery Tour" album. It was a bit slower and more lush sounding. To me it was like music from heaven.
ldchappell1 I was 9 yrs old and glued to the floor in front of our black and white tv when they made their first appearance on the Ed Sullivan Show. I was hooked....and still am 😉
OMG !!!! This is GOLD ..... first hand reaction of what was happening during those days ... omg ... I'm sure everyeone was in shock back then .... just look the reaction of those kids .... PRICELESS !!!!
A lot of 'em, especially teen girls, cared more about their looks than the music. Once Rubber Soul and Revolver hit they were starting catch the ears of older teens and young adults a lot more, and Sgt. Pepper was the final nail in the coffin.
By this time the Beatles wasn't making simple pop songs for teens just to just dance to anymore but were progressing toward a more mature and sophisticated sound which is why some of these teens didn't appreciate Strawberry Fields or Penny Lane at this time. And yet three months later... they were buying Sgt. Pepper by the truckloads.
Exactly. They were probably sick and tired of the whole screaming teen thing by then. My older sister dragged me to see the Beatles play at Candlestick Park in August 1966. I was eight. There was so many screaming girls there you could barely hear the band. It was insane.
The Teens of Yesteryear are the Seniors of Today!!😁😁😁 I was 15 years old. The Beatles did take everyone by surprise with the look and sound, but this was waiting in the wings. Change affects us all, it's what you do with it. I wasn't a fan of I Wanna Hold Your Hand song either, it took a few times to listen and like it. They matured and got better in the studio, with a lot of Help From Their Friends!
It's easy now to understand just how amazing the Beatles were during the 60s. You have to remember that less than a year before this the Beatles were hated because of John's remarks about Christianity and their records were burned and banned from most radio stations. So for these kids to see them looking so different and the music so much deeper. They had no idea how to take it all in.
"Outlasting" in terms of a band's longevity is highly overrated. When I was a kid in the 70's and early 80's, I wanted the Beatles to get back together. In hindsight, I am glad that they didn't. They had an amazing run with loads of high quality and groundbreaking music between 1963 and 1969. The Beatles did their thing, and broke up when it was clear that their gig's time was at an end........and a glorious end it was, with the legendary Abbey Road album being their final piece of work together. So yes, bands like The Who and The Rolling Stones have "outlasted" the Beatles, but singing "Jumping Jack Flash" on stage at the age of about 76 isn't exactly a testament to longevity being a prime factor in determining how good a band is.
@@jeffreykaufmann4625 I think that they would have made perhaps 2 more excellent albums in 1970 and 1971, but there is something about the timing of the Beatles' break-up that was almost ideal........not including the 23-second 'Her Majesty' joke, the final song on the final album that they recorded together was called "The End." Their break-up coincided with the end of the decade of the 60's to a tee. And the fact that they recorded more than 200 commercial songs (almost all of them at least good or better) in such a short span (1963 to 1969) was unbelievable. If they had continued with one or 2 more albums, they probably would have been excellent records that would not have tarnished their legacy/myth........but if they had gone on for another decade making 8 or 9 more albums, I suspect that that would have taken something off of their magic, even with the excellent songwriters that they had.
The Stones have lasted 5 times as long as the Beatles did. Beatles were and are the best. I like the Rolling Stones but not since the 80's. Record sales or units sold the Fab Four still out sells 70% of everyone out there. The Stones have never come close to selling a billion records. In their defense they are probably in the all time top 5 in concert revenue and live performance gate receipts.
c'mon. It's a pop song. It sounds like you love it -- that's totally fine -- but lotsa people aren't crazy-crazy about it. It's all down to personal taste -- that's why "no one was crying after listening". Cheers.
These kids came to dance. Music is just a background noise that provides a beat in order for them to show off the latest dance moves. Asking that bunch to rate a song on overall composition is like asking the blind, 'who do you like best, Van Gough or Monet' ?
Interesting how not one of them mentioned the music. Also someone said they looked like grandparents, what the hell kinda grandparents are 24-27 yrs old? Something really wrong with that audience.
"I don't like those mustaches . . . The look old, like grampas". LOL. John was 27 then, Paul was 25. To a teen ten years younger, they looked like grampas!
The funny thing is that I'll bet each and every kid who made a smart allecky remark against the Beatles in this show was trying to grow his own copycat Beatles mustache within 5 months.
I think both songs are brilliant. Some of the kids would agree 52 years later. Dick Clark was never a fan of the Beatles. That is one of.the reasons why I did care for him that much.
I was 13 when I saw these 2 videos in 1967. I hated them because I was still vibing to the earlier Beatles "simple" boy/girl songs. Being in Junior HS 7th grade I was living the whole simple boy/girl thing. I also had just got Rubber Soul and Revolver (American) for Xmas and I didn't really like those albums either. They "broke the mold" for me and were too advanced. But In retrospect....age (and state of mind) matters. I now consider Rubber Soul/Revolver to be their best 2 albums and the apex of their career. So yea, I totally get where these kids were coming from...Beatles were changing faster than their fans.
I love how everyone's reaction was how the Beatles looked!!! Nevermind they just heard 2 of the greatest songs ever...oh well, thank goodness for LSD.🎶🌠🌜🌟💜☮🌈
In reality, there was zero competition between the Monkees and the Beatles. In fact, the Beatles threw a huge party for the Monkees when the latter toured in England. Each bands ran in similar social circles in the LA rock scene. Micky often partied with John and Ringo in the 70's! I'm a huge Beatles fan and Monkees fan and love them for different reasons. I recogniZe the Beatles' innovation and the Monkees infectious music. Let's be real too: the Monkees were not the only pop group of the era to have session musicians. The Beach Boys had then, as did the Mama's and the Papa's. Just watch the Wrecking Crew documentary for more info on that. The Monkees started out as a group on tv, but became a musical group in real life as well. Plus, Mike and Peter were also seasoned musicians, while Micky and Davy were seasoned singers and performers. They weren't talentless. I just felt like I need to set the record straight as there are many inaccurate comments here.
The Monkees had a lot of really good tunes. Daily Nightly, Porpoise Song, The Door Into Summer, Listen To The Band, As We Go Along, Pleasant Valley Sunday just to name a few. It was good mid to late 60s pop music.
It never occurred to any of us at the time that the "Monkees" were not actually a rock group, they were actors on a TV Show, much like the Partridge Family were several years later. The one-word comments like "weird" and "different" were so indicative of the time period. No intelligent commentary.
Lucky enough to see the Beatles when they came to Adelaide, Australia in 1964. They still had their "clean cut" look. Couldn't hear a thing at their concert: 3,000 screaming teenage girls in a very small venue, & the lads had very tiny, hopelessly inadequate amps. I personally much preferred The Stones, a scruffy anti-establishment foil to the then clean cut Beatles. My ears are still ringing from the last time I saw The Stones (RIP Charlie Watts) in Sydney 16 years ago. Fun (?) fact: a 9 year old Keith Richards was in the Westminster Abbey choir at Queen Elizabeth's coronation 70 years ago...
These kids were around 15-17 at the time of the filming of this episode in 1966. Which meant they were around 13-15 when the Beatles appeared on the Ed Sullivan show. They didn't realize what they were witnessing. To focus on their mustaches and not the music..... this is the moment people in their 20s-30s at the time started appreciating the Beatles.
I'll go on record here by stating that the teenaged generation of the 60s (I'm Gen X myself) had tin ears. They had the finest rock music of all time at their fingertips---even the pop music was often brilliant---and they took most of it for granted. And much of it blew right over their heads. Don't forget, these were the same people who bought millions of Bobby Goldsboro records and Gary Puckett & the Union Gap platters, while the Velvet Underground and Nick Drake went wanting.
I think the general masses of any generation have tin ears. Those who listened to 3-chord pop that they could dance to 50 years ago are the same type as those who listen to 3-chord pop now. To me, kids who love awesome new music are the same as those of us who devoured good music in the 60's.
It looks a lot cooler if you are not enthusiastic about anything: "Meh, they're ok, but I'm not easily impressed cuz I been around, you know what I'm sayin?" Right. Two great songs and no one has the guts to say it? Yep, that was us. Ask me now: "Ok, Mr. Clark, we've just watched history being made. Hell yeh, I'm impressed."
Peggy did you ever consider writing a book about your experiences back then? I think you and dancer don have a lot of insight on how it felt to be a part of that time. And as you can tell from the reactions to any of these posts there is a huge amount of interest.
@luxx_interior yes, I agree. It's obvious 50 years later, what a great catalog of music the Beatles created, compared to the fun, wacky entertainment of The Monkees.
......at that time I was these teenager's age and the Monkees were a pain ,,us boys had a hard time explaining to the girls that the Monkees were fake pansies. We got accused of being jealous.
It was no competition. The Monkees was a kiddie show. Even The Beatles animated TV series had better plots. It wasn't until the third album that the Monkees even sang together, much less played instuments.
Regarding AB and the teen girls who dissed the 1967 Beatles, it's only because they were blindsided by their evolution because they knew them as the I Want To Hold Your Hand teen girl idols It was mainly the boys who were more accepting of their hippie ,acid dropping change
"We hope you'll be here one week from today, for the Beatles debut on American Bandstand. Their first visit to us direct from England." 1967's version of click-bait. The Beatles never appeared on American Bandstand, and never were supposed to.
Up until this point, these kids were used to seeing The Beatles perform in cutsie suits, mop top hair. As far as the music, when your used to hearing them sing "Yesterday", "Eight Days a Week" and "Twist and Shout", "Strawberry Fields" can be a shock to the system the first time you heard it.
Yeah, this was the roughly the time when the Beatles transitioned from being a loveable mop-top boy-band to legit serious musicians. It was unavoidable that they would lose a lot of their very young fans but in the process they would be gaining a lot of respect and accolades from older listeners.
These kids were not even 18 years old yet, some were 15 or 16 years old and it was the late 60s, music and fashion changed a lot since the Beatles were at their peak in the early sixties. That one girl said they look like grandparents and another girl said they Beatles were ugly! What?! Well the Beatles were older by ten or twelve years, they changed their look, looking more groovy than cute and innocent looking and more hairy! These teens were children when the Beatles first became worldwide popular but since it’s the late 60s in this video, these teens have different taste in music, fashion and hairdos. They didn’t see or embrace the Beatles the same way when the teenagers first heard about the Beatles in the early to mid 60s. Music changes rapidly. Even though I was a toddler to 5 years old then... oh my god! Lol... I grew up hearing my Aunt play a lot of Beatles music and I’m still a big fan of their early music, I even saw the LOVE show in Vegas a couple of times, a good friend of ours worked at the Mirage as one of the main security guards, he got us free tickets to see the show, it was amazing! Young teenagers still think anyone over 23 years old, is a grandpa or a grandma! 🤨😬
The american youth behaved very well back then, but didn't have a clue what was going on. The Beatles where in the center of a cultural and social paradigma shift, but this audience and the moderator are mentally still in the mid 1950ties.
I've been a huge Beatles fan since '64, but I'm not at all surprised by the generally negative reaction to Strawberry Fields and Penny Lane. I was 12 in '67. Took me awhile to adjust to the post mop-top music.
It was completely different. And not just different in a "Rubber Soul/Revolver" kind of way being different from all the pop tunes they did in the early years. I mean, it was like the world losing their virginity when Strawberry Fields Forever came out.
Actually things started to change in 1965, when they tried to play "Yesterday" at a concert somewhere in Europe, and the girls in the audience tried to keep up the shrieking, but even they figured out that it wasn't that kind of a song. During the 1966 tours, they never played any of the tracks from the current Revolver album.
Believe it or not, I remember watching this America Bandstand show on Sat.... & I couldn't get enough of The Beatles in the day, still play their music because it's just great music. I remember thinking how shallow they came across and they were the same age as I was!
We just needed a little time to “once again” catch up. Within a couple of months every popular band out there looked like that and we were all on board. LOL!
This is interesting because it was at this precise moment in time that the Fab Four was on the threshold of inciting a huge social revolution, although these kids were unaware of it. Although many like Dick Clark thought that Beatles were drying up and on the verge of breaking up, the were at the time busy at work on the Sgt Pepper LP. The legendary album would change the attitudes of many, and these kids themselves (well the guys) would soon start growing mustaches and even beards, despite many of them being turned off by the Beatles wearing them. The Beatles were on the verge of ushering in the hippie era.
To put this in perspective. Barbara Streisand was only 25 years old when this clip was produced. Today she is still going strong at 76. Trump was 22. Older than many of these kids here on this show. What say you?
@@derekgrrr6982 Trump is a big Beatles fan. He would have been 17 when they appeared on Sullivan. I wonder why he couldn't have gotten a ticket but perhaps he was in the Military Academy at the time. I know Nixon's daughter was there as was Rockefeller's.
I was 9 years old and loving baby youre a rich man and hello goodbye and i am the walrus. Even I knew the value of this music at that age. These are teanie boppers that just needed time to absorb it.
![FNAF vs TF2 - Episode 2 [SFM]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/z5b3V2-VLb0/mqdefault.jpg)
Moral of the story: if somebody calls you weird today they might call you genius in the future. Be yourself at all costs
“All truth goes through three phases: First it is ridiculed. Then violently opposed. Finally it is found to have always been self evident.”
- Schopenhauer (paraphrased)
Or they will be hammered down your throat by pop culture for decades to give them status
Or don't care about what they think now or will think in the future too much
@@Gynecologist WELL, were all still waiting on YOKO....TO BE RECOGNIZED
Agree
The moment the Beatles left behind the image-worshiping teens and became rock legends.
Absolutely correct!!!!
@@aa697 They outgrew the "show biz/entertainment culture" but gained so much more. You know that Dick Clark didn't see anything in The Beatles in '63. Only when they had become a phenomenon did he pay attention to them on Bandstand. He doesn't wear that well.
No truer words have ever been spoken. Great comment.
No comments on the actual music which was even more startling.
@@benedictweisser3086 I'm sure he wears it just fine
The Beatles were so way ahead of everyone that it must have been very difficult for their fans to understand those changes way back in 1967.
“Those changes” where there since 1966.
In the year 2525 the world will finally wake up to YOKO ONOs' GREATNESS ...
@@kthevsamig4958 True, but it wasn’t as radical certainly image-wise.
@@kthevsamig4958 they still looked the same in 66. and their music wasnt as different as this was.
Today people are whining about the Ruscha cover to the single "Now and Then"!
"They have a right to look any way they want." Someone had a brain. XD
He was plugged into the changing times!
With that non-response? They clearly didn't like the look, but gave them permission to look how they wanted. How gracious of them. And 192 people liked that comment?
@@generalyellor8188 what?
@@generalyellor8188 i mean he was right in what he said, not giving them permission
Two of the greatest pop masterpieces ever created and they’re criticising their moustaches.
Wait till they get a load of Revolver! 😎
@@waynej2608 this was after revolver
@@waynej2608 You mean the then-forthcoming Sgt. Pepper's album.
Pop Masterpiece is an oxymoron. Just a piece of great music
@@waynej2608 Revolver had already been released by that point. The next album to be released was Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band...
I thought it interesting that not one of those kids said anything specifically about the music. It was mostly about their appearances.
Mike Tillman oh of course. And they did look so different because we hadn’t seen them for a while.
If you think about it at that particular time music videos didn't exist so saying something like that was new. Plus this is when Sergeant Pepper came out. They had an entirely different look. It looked like adults with facial hair. The Beatles were trendsetters back then and everybody tried to look like them. It wasn't much longer after that but the hair became longer and the beard started growing. It really is interesting to see the reaction compared to how things are today
crzrck that’s right. And pepper hadn’t even come out yet. But it definitely was mind blowing what they looked and sounded like.
Comedian John Mulaney in 2017: "Huh, none of the Beatles had mustaches, but then one day, all of them had mustaches. That's weird, I can't think of a time a group has done that."
@@Mokkari77 they all grew moustaches for the Sgt pepper cover, to get away from the old mop top image, it was all McCartney's idea that group was Sgt pepper
They just had the greatness of Strawberry Fields Forever thrust upon them for the first time and all they can talk about is mustaches.
Not everyone thinks Strawberry Fields is great.
You have to remember at that time people did not see celebs all the time like today. It was probably the first time they had seem them in a while and they looked totally different. It would be the first thing that stood out.
@@jerrypeters2095 yeah, I get it, and it was the first time they had been seen in a while as they went on an extended break following the release of Revolver and their final tour. I just find it humorous that they get hit with a song unlike anybody had ever heard before and the majority of these kids are shocked over a few mustaches.
In those days excess hair 🧔was rebellious and unsightly....clean cut was the SO CALLED norm....💇♀️
@@jerrypeters2095 Yeah. Not everybody likes Strawberry Fields. Some people are tone deaf.
The Shape You also have to realize that during this time period great songs were being cranked out almost weekly. It really was a golden age of creativity.
The band definitely grew up but the fans had a bit to catch up.
merica.
@Linda Terry Bandstand had moved to Los Angeles years before this show aired. No need to insult Philadelphia stupid.
The Beatles attracted newer fans, with these changes. Older teens/young adults. Smarter, hipper.
Most of these kids here,can just groove to Hermans Hermits. 😎
So did the world. It still hasn't caught up imo.
A few hits of acid and they were on board quickly
The best answer came from the first teenager he asked after playing Strawberry Fields (2:28). "That was great"....with a look like he was blown away.
When a teenager called them weird, it was a clear sign the Beatles were waaaaayyy ahead of their time!
The guy who said it was great has great taste.
I guess that was you?
And, within six or eight months, all the boys were trying to grow mustaches
Yeah, Yeah Yeah, You Got That Right!!!😎😎😎
Yup well said! They look ugly, they look old as well just like what they say about the beatles 😂
More like in three months' time..
I think Mike Love of The Beach Boys was already sporting a full beard by the time The Beatles released that single.
@@bigheadfred Yup but no one wants to look like Mike Love. The majority of the men in the clip have long hair cause of The Beatles. And a few months later all those young men would like to dress and look "weird" cause of The Beatles.
Kids in 1967 saying the Beatles were old news.. whilst sitting there with ear lengh hair, pin-down collars, waistcoats and bob cuts like it was still 1963
Old Skool Fool , The Beatles music is alive and going strong in 2019. Some of the kids are obviously stupid. I watched my 3 year old granddaughter last night and she loved their singing. When they had facial hair, they grew up and changed their look. I would hate to meet some of these assholes. I always loved my Gorgeous George. I wonder if these kids still look 17. I wish I did. People change and grow up.
@@patriciabarkley735 lol not fair to call them stupid. They were just kids. But I'm sure the Beatles (if they saw this) got a good laugh.
teenagers will always be on the dumb side in any era
@@charlespatrick8650 fr can't blame people for becoming teens just like for old age
The four of group were dealing with the death of Brian Epstein, rumblings of Paul is dead, Jimmy Nichols having tried insinuate himself into the group and failed with the backlash against John's remarks on historic Jesus.still lingering. This video shows their true artistic influences and unfortunately some cracks of growing up and apart! No conforming dress code, even for "The Beatles" as when Brian incistenced[He's dead]?
I'm 41. The first time I heard Strawberry Fields Forever was when I was 6 years old and it was on a jukebox at a pizza shop. I remember hearing the fade out/in at the end being very scared. It was spooky.
And yet, I couldn't wait to hear it again. Then of course as I got older and really began to appreciate the Beatles and love all their music, well, it's now one of the great masterpieces of the 20th century.
That's what great art is. It's beyond music. It scares you or makes you a little uneasy when you first see or hear it, but by 20 years later you're addicted to it.
Joey D By late 66 they were 25 and 26 years old and outgrew the kids. That music was for mature audiences only.
Beatles lost so many fans after John's "bigger than jesus" comment. Probably one of the reasons they had to change their image and act. The guys were younger than 30 and masters by then. Crazy
@@bassinblue I read in one of the Beatles books I have that a study was performed after John said that and everyone burned all their Beatle records. Within the next few years, they'd all be purchased back. The Sgt Pepper era aimed at a different crowd than She Loves You, no question about it. But by 1970 they were the biggest frigging thing in the world and it didn't matter..... they had resold every album they made twice over.
If anything, you can credit John for a brilliant marketing plan.
Joey D A Day In The Life really freaked me out - the orchestral crescendo really put me on edge as a kid.
Considering it’s the closing number on the album, you get eerie silence in your room/house after the song’s final chord fades out...... just imagine buying that album and listening to it all the way through the first time.
It wasn’t Twist And Shout closing their debut album getting everyone in a great mood...... the house went silent after John sang depressingly about reading sad news in the paper and an out of tune orchestra played a psychedelic warped crescendo.
I’m quite sure no one in the house said a word for 5 minutes after that.
Yikes!!
These kids didn't know what was about to hit them. Man, to be alive back then.
Fr. They were so unaware of some of the greatest music being released before their eyes
I was 10 years old in 1967. My school library actually had a copy of "Sgt.Pepper" and I was the first kid to check it out. I kept it for almost a month and had to pay a dollar fine. The Beatles are WAY MORE revered now than they were in the 60s. By 1973 if you were still listening to the Beatles, you probably took some ribbing from your friends for being "behind the times." I'm 62 now and still love the Beatles. Their music is timeless.
I remember seeing their performance of 'Penny Lane' on TV back then at 12 yrs old. I was mesmerized. Good timing for me: I got to enjoy their pop sounds when I was a child, then matured as they went to produce the good stuff as I followed along. . . . .
HVYMETL
Me too! 😁
I remember the first time I heard "Pepper" at a cousin's house in Heavener Oklahoma during the early summer of 67. Ohhhhhhhhhh my.
Trend setters are almost always laughed at in the beginning. Within 6 months from this telecast the entire youth movement started to dress like the Beatles including the length of their hair and even facial hair. The fact that most of these kids mocked the greatest 45 record that's ever been recorded shows how far ahead of the game the Beatles really were. Miles ahead of everyone else.
This is a GREAT example of how pop culture moves the public and creates the trends. Fascinating. Innovators and trend setters who aren't afraid to try something new will always be looked sideways at to begin with, as you can hear with the kids' initial reactions. But genius is rewarded with imitation.
They just couldn't comment on the music because they didn't understand what they were listening to. It was wildly different. This is what "mind-blowing" means when we talk about The Beatles impact on the 60s.
It’s 2019 and the Beatles are still great and still relevant today
"This -game- band is still relevant god damn it"
Some songs are too spectacular to wrap your head around at the first listen.
the Beatles at that time just pre St Pepper were evolving into artists rather than an entertainment combo. The kids interviewed were confused by this.
Norman Meharry
You’re exactly right
They haven't been dosed yet.
True, they weren't aware of what was going to smack them hard in the face was just around the corner...
They were on the "pot"
I mean, to their defence this was probably the first “psychedelic” song these kids had heard. It was completely alien specially for people used to pop idols and bubblegum bands.
1967. The year everything changed. The. Beatles ruled...and they still do!
Joey D., 41, as of April 12th, 2019, I still think the Beatles will outlast everyone!
Joey D from one joe to another the Beatles are Forever
William Clarke was 16 when this show aired. Now I just turned 68 and the Beatle were just getting into their most creative period.
Like the preceding Joe's. Joe C here- Beatles are without a doubt "Forever"-Keep it going guys !
Yep they STILL are!!!.... going to see Sir Paul in June 2019 and Sir Ringo in August 2019!!!! So Yeah!!!..🍓Fields Forever!!!!!!🍓🍓🍓🍓
Joey D Sharon H. 59, the Beatles! I was 3 when they came to the States.
Hard to imagine that at one time people actually mentioned The Monkeys in the same sentence as The Beatles, and that they did it with a straight face.
This is an amazing pairing of clips. Despite what some other commentators have written I'm going to cut this audience a lot of slack:
The survey shows the fan loyalty to the Beatlemania era band without true awareness that it had come to an end months before. Then the 2nd one is the immediate reaction of the same type if not the same teenagers, after viewing a very artsy avant-garde video a good dozen years before avant-garde videos come into vogue; starring their heroes not looking or sounding anything like the Fab Four. And they were supposed to give deep insightful observations in front of millions of people, seconds after having their concept of the Beatles completely upended?
The only disappointment was that they didn't talk about the music and that was what the Beatles were trying to do. In England the story was different. Hello they stopped touring, that means they are going to put out better records. The Beatles should have communicated better that they were going to focus on the music more, and experiment more in the studio.
@@CaseyVan I don't know - keep in mind that they were getting pestered since 1966 with rumors of their breakup. Critics were already calling them washed up because people were accustomed to getting three albums from them every year. Then all of a sudden they go from August of '66 until well into 1967 with nothing. For many, their image had been hurt by the "Jesus" comments earlier that year. The Beatles of course were waiting to unleash their masterpiece (Sgt Pepper) in June, which became the biggest album of the entire generation as well as the ultimate f-you to all of the doubters. I'd say it ended up working out pretty well for them.
The Beatles were and are a Phenomenon.
this is literally proof that audiences never cared about music. its only about appearance
These kids who are 16-19, they would have been born in the late 1940's.
Many of these people are in their 70's and 80's today. Boy does time fly!
Lmfao your math is all over the place. Most of them would be born in the early 50s as I said heard ages 15 and 16 often, and they would be in their late 60s and early 70s now. Not anywhere close to 80s.
@@USMCLP Yeah, Ben sure skipped maths classes at school...
Lol, exactly what I said.
@Ben Kleschinsky Oh damn, I was high as shit and I just wanted to nitpick. Power of Mary Jane.
USMCLP 🤣😂😆
This is amazing footage.
I always wonder what folk thought when they first heard Tomorrow Never Knows and this feels kind of close.
A perfect example of how younger listeners were unprepared for and blindsided by genius.
Not everyone thought or thinks the Beatles as “genius”…Just saying.
@@mrob75 no shit
@@mrob75well obviously
@@Beatleslover3 greetings! Obviously
@@mrob75 be quiet
Now they're in their late 60s/early 70s and paying $300 a ticket to see Sir Paul McCartney, and complaing about how bad new music is compared to the music of their youth, like the Beatles. But at least Sir Paul doesn't currently have a mustache.
i saw paul in 2010 & 2018 and paid $57 & $63 respectively. bargain of the century!
😂
He hasn't chipped any teeth in motorbike accidents since then, that's why.
And forget about him looking like someone's grandfather, he is a grandfather!
How were the Beatles so ahead of their time? How did they know what they were doing would work so incredibly well? Just about every single song still holds up today. These guys were so smart and so innovative, people actually believe they were created by the government. Imagine being so incredibly gifted and talented, people believe your fake. My true heroes forever and always.
Even then, the government at every level, had a rather weird control on people's psyche. The Info-China Independence Conflict against Japanese, French< USA and pro-imperialist of homegrown variety was about to round the corner> I remember either john or George commenting on Vietnam in 1965. Iran. Syria. Libya. Afghanistan. Russia. CCP. like Sitting Bull, needs to heel on command? A new republic needs to come to America, a multi-party, spectrum something? But that may not come about before the economic Armegedon!!
Beatles forever
4:04 That kid had the best answer
Really? When he's basically saying, "I don't like their look, but they can look anyway they want." That's a political answer.
@@generalyellor8188crying
I watched this on our family's black and white TV when I was 10 years old. I loved The Beatles new look. The version they showed of "Strawberry Fields Forever" was not the same one that ended up on the "Magical Mystery Tour" album. It was a bit slower and more lush sounding. To me it was like music from heaven.
ldchappell1
I was 9 yrs old and glued to the floor in front of our black and white tv when they made their first appearance on the Ed Sullivan Show. I was hooked....and still am 😉
Really... interesting. This is the first time I've heard this. Must have been a demo?
OMG !!!! This is GOLD ..... first hand reaction of what was happening during those days ... omg ... I'm sure everyeone was in shock back then .... just look the reaction of those kids .... PRICELESS !!!!
Seems like the fans who probably were around during Beatlemania haven't grown up yet, the Beatles were miles ahead of them
No they weren’t
A lot of 'em, especially teen girls, cared more about their looks than the music. Once Rubber Soul and Revolver hit they were starting catch the ears of older teens and young adults a lot more, and Sgt. Pepper was the final nail in the coffin.
By this time the Beatles wasn't making simple pop songs for teens just to just dance to anymore but were progressing toward a more mature and sophisticated sound which is why some of these teens didn't appreciate Strawberry Fields or Penny Lane at this time.
And yet three months later... they were buying Sgt. Pepper by the truckloads.
Exactly. They were probably sick and tired of the whole screaming teen thing by then. My older sister dragged me to see the Beatles play at Candlestick Park in August 1966. I was eight. There was so many screaming girls there you could barely hear the band. It was insane.
Revolver was where they started to shoo away the girls.
The Teens of Yesteryear are the Seniors of Today!!😁😁😁 I was 15 years old. The Beatles did take everyone by surprise with the look and sound, but this was waiting in the wings. Change affects us all, it's what you do with it. I wasn't a fan of I Wanna Hold Your Hand song either, it took a few times to listen and like it. They matured and got better in the studio, with a lot of Help From Their Friends!
It's easy now to understand just how amazing the Beatles were during the 60s. You have to remember that less than a year before this the Beatles were hated because of John's remarks about Christianity and their records were burned and banned from most radio stations. So for these kids to see them looking so different and the music so much deeper. They had no idea how to take it all in.
The Beatles grew up and a lot of young people didn’t.
"Outlasting" in terms of a band's longevity is highly overrated. When I was a kid in the 70's and early 80's, I wanted the Beatles to get back together. In hindsight, I am glad that they didn't. They had an amazing run with loads of high quality and groundbreaking music between 1963 and 1969. The Beatles did their thing, and broke up when it was clear that their gig's time was at an end........and a glorious end it was, with the legendary Abbey Road album being their final piece of work together. So yes, bands like The Who and The Rolling Stones have "outlasted" the Beatles, but singing "Jumping Jack Flash" on stage at the age of about 76 isn't exactly a testament to longevity being a prime factor in determining how good a band is.
By 1980 the stones were done.But I think the Beatles would have made excellent albums in the 1970s cause they had three excellent songwriters.
@@jeffreykaufmann4625 I think that they would have made perhaps 2 more excellent albums in 1970 and 1971, but there is something about the timing of the Beatles' break-up that was almost ideal........not including the 23-second 'Her Majesty' joke, the final song on the final album that they recorded together was called "The End." Their break-up coincided with the end of the decade of the 60's to a tee. And the fact that they recorded more than 200 commercial songs (almost all of them at least good or better) in such a short span (1963 to 1969) was unbelievable. If they had continued with one or 2 more albums, they probably would have been excellent records that would not have tarnished their legacy/myth........but if they had gone on for another decade making 8 or 9 more albums, I suspect that that would have taken something off of their magic, even with the excellent songwriters that they had.
Jeffrey Kaufmann Hilarious!! You should do stand up.
The Stones have lasted 5 times as long as the Beatles did. Beatles were and are the best. I like the Rolling Stones
but not since the 80's. Record sales or units sold the Fab Four still out sells 70% of everyone out there. The Stones
have never come close to selling a billion records. In their defense they are probably in the all time top 5 in concert
revenue and live performance gate receipts.
@@jerrybrownell3633 Stop it your killing me.
I absolutely love that kid’s reaction at 2:26
Thank you. 💯💯💯💯💯
The reactions of these mid to late 1960s is what I needed to see.
I can't believe how no one was crying after listening to Penny Lane and its perfect chord progression and arrangements 😤
c'mon. It's a pop song. It sounds like you love it -- that's totally fine -- but lotsa people aren't crazy-crazy about it. It's all down to personal taste -- that's why "no one was crying after listening". Cheers.
I’d be the first kid with a huge smile saying ‘I thought its great!’
These kids are so square,
that's a great thing
Yes, they're so idiots.
They’re definitely L7.
Well they didn't invite hippies doing acid to American Bandstand that was red, white and blue, and mom's apple pie crowd.
But some of these kids will be college age by the White Album. They'll have changed their tune.
Over 50 years later we are still talking about the Beatles.
Nobody is... it’s all about Cardi B and Nicki Minaj and K-pop nowadays
@@kthevsamig4958until those artists become passe.
These kids came to dance. Music is just a background noise that provides a beat in order for them to show off the latest dance moves. Asking that bunch to rate a song on overall composition is like asking the blind, 'who do you like best, Van Gough or Monet' ?
Not even that, they simply liked the looks of the Beatles. When they changed their looks it removed certain audience.
Interesting how not one of them mentioned the music. Also someone said they looked like grandparents, what the hell kinda grandparents are 24-27 yrs old? Something really wrong with that audience.
😂😂😂😂😂
Like maybe really really young?
When I was that age....I thought 30 was near death😂
A living example of people stunned by music from the future
"I guess you guys aren't ready for that yet. But your kids are gonna love it"
"I don't like those mustaches . . . The look old, like grampas". LOL. John was 27 then, Paul was 25. To a teen ten years younger, they looked like grampas!
Probably the same type of kids that would like American Idol in recent years.
The funny thing is that I'll bet each and every kid who made a smart allecky remark against the Beatles in this show was trying to grow his own copycat Beatles mustache within 5 months.
This is a great document
I think both songs are brilliant. Some of the kids would agree 52 years later. Dick Clark was never a fan of the Beatles. That is one of.the reasons why I did care for him that much.
I was 13 when I saw these 2 videos in 1967. I hated them because I was still vibing to the earlier Beatles "simple" boy/girl songs. Being in Junior HS 7th grade I was living the whole simple boy/girl thing. I also had just got Rubber Soul and Revolver (American) for Xmas and I didn't really like those albums either. They "broke the mold" for me and were too advanced.
But In retrospect....age (and state of mind) matters. I now consider Rubber Soul/Revolver to be their best 2 albums and the apex of their career.
So yea, I totally get where these kids were coming from...Beatles were changing faster than their fans.
little did they know all of them them would soon adopt the fashion of the beatles
The Beatles were changing the world, again.
I love how everyone's reaction was how the Beatles looked!!! Nevermind they just heard 2 of the greatest songs ever...oh well, thank goodness for LSD.🎶🌠🌜🌟💜☮🌈
To be fair, Dick tells them he wants to get their impressions of "what you've just seen".
I thought the same thing. What about that incredible music!
luxx_interior m
Wrong! The Beatles would have been much better without drugs.
@@DUCKDUCKGOISMUCHBETTER So would the rest of the world, but that's not the way society works. It's a done deal.
Oh my gosh and we have that SFF video here on you tube in perfect quality to see. So exciting!
In reality, there was zero competition between the Monkees and the Beatles. In fact, the Beatles threw a huge party for the Monkees when the latter toured in England. Each bands ran in similar social circles in the LA rock scene. Micky often partied with John and Ringo in the 70's! I'm a huge Beatles fan and Monkees fan and love them for different reasons. I recogniZe the Beatles' innovation and the Monkees infectious music. Let's be real too: the Monkees were not the only pop group of the era to have session musicians. The Beach Boys had then, as did the Mama's and the Papa's. Just watch the Wrecking Crew documentary for more info on that. The Monkees started out as a group on tv, but became a musical group in real life as well. Plus, Mike and Peter were also seasoned musicians, while Micky and Davy were seasoned singers and performers. They weren't talentless. I just felt like I need to set the record straight as there are many inaccurate comments here.
They were buddies for sure. Davy Jones got on quite well with John Lennon.
The Monkees had a lot of really good tunes. Daily Nightly, Porpoise Song, The Door Into Summer, Listen To The Band, As We Go Along, Pleasant Valley Sunday just to name a few. It was good mid to late 60s pop music.
Mickey Dolenz took part in John Lennon's lost weekend adventures
It never occurred to any of us at the time that the "Monkees" were not actually a rock group, they were actors on a TV Show, much like the Partridge Family were several years later. The one-word comments like "weird" and "different" were so indicative of the time period. No intelligent commentary.
It's like comparing Donny Osmond to Yes. Drives me crazy!
@degree7 BS! they hadnt even met befor the tv show. Mike was the only "musician" in the Monkees. Although Mickey had some pipes.
I would have thought at least a few of them had heard Revolver from the previous year, yet they seem bemused.
If John hadn't been murdered, I always wonder if they would have reunited at Live Aid in 1985?
They would have shared the show with Queen. It would have been memorable.
Sean Fleming no, they wouldn’t have.
c2itccase9 well john would have probably been there and paul was there so i don’t see why not
John wasn't even interested in taking part in Georges concert for Bangladesh.
@@zylbher1 they would have stolen the show ..... period !!!
The Monkees and the Beatles are still loved by millions today.
the beatles yes, but not the monkees.
Within 3 months every one of these kids would be rushing out to pick up Sergeant pepper
Lucky enough to see the Beatles when they came to Adelaide, Australia in 1964. They still had their "clean cut" look. Couldn't hear a thing at their concert: 3,000 screaming teenage girls in a very small venue, & the lads had very tiny, hopelessly inadequate amps. I personally much preferred The Stones, a scruffy anti-establishment foil to the then clean cut Beatles. My ears are still ringing from the last time I saw The Stones (RIP Charlie Watts) in Sydney 16 years ago. Fun (?) fact: a 9 year old Keith Richards was in the Westminster Abbey choir at Queen Elizabeth's coronation 70 years ago...
Thanks for posting-I'm a first generation Beatles fan.
These kids were around 15-17 at the time of the filming of this episode in 1966. Which meant they were around 13-15 when the Beatles appeared on the Ed Sullivan show. They didn't realize what they were witnessing. To focus on their mustaches and not the music..... this is the moment people in their 20s-30s at the time started appreciating the Beatles.
I'll go on record here by stating that the teenaged generation of the 60s (I'm Gen X myself) had tin ears. They had the finest rock music of all time at their fingertips---even the pop music was often brilliant---and they took most of it for granted. And much of it blew right over their heads. Don't forget, these were the same people who bought millions of Bobby Goldsboro records and Gary Puckett & the Union Gap platters, while the Velvet Underground and Nick Drake went wanting.
I think the general masses of any generation have tin ears. Those who listened to 3-chord pop that they could dance to 50 years ago are the same type as those who listen to 3-chord pop now. To me, kids who love awesome new music are the same as those of us who devoured good music in the 60's.
I remember that day. It was rather shocking what we saw. Things were a changin.
"We'll be right back to American Bandstand after this word from Clearasil".
Reno Slim
LOL!
every teenager's miracle drug.
Reno Slim 😂😂😂👍🏽
It looks a lot cooler if you are not enthusiastic about anything: "Meh, they're ok, but I'm not easily impressed cuz I been around, you know what I'm sayin?" Right. Two great songs and no one has the guts to say it? Yep, that was us. Ask me now: "Ok, Mr. Clark, we've just watched history being made. Hell yeh, I'm impressed."
Pa thinks that everyone has his musical tastes and if they don't they are just lying.
All the kids in this video will now be in their 70's.
This is 67 so most of them were probably born late 40's early 50's so yeah they would be close to 70 now.
In their mid late 60s actually. I am 51, almost 52, and I was born just a few weeks after this.
They are gray, wrinkled and saggy regardless. If they are even lucky enough to still be alive! lol😂😂😂😂
@@johngalush8790 now that they're 64+ i wonder if anyone needs them and feeds them
@@johngalush8790 Guess what, that will be you one day, and quicker than you ever imagined. 🤣
Peggy did you ever consider writing a book about your experiences back then? I think you and dancer don have a lot of insight on how it felt to be a part of that time. And as you can tell from the reactions to any of these posts there is a huge amount of interest.
This is a good memory of the competition between the Beatles and the Monkees during that time period.
@luxx_interior yes, I agree. It's obvious 50 years later, what a great catalog of music the Beatles created, compared to the fun, wacky entertainment of The Monkees.
......at that time I was these teenager's age and the Monkees were a pain ,,us boys had a hard time explaining to the girls that the Monkees were fake pansies. We got accused of being jealous.
It was no competition. The Monkees was a kiddie show. Even The Beatles animated TV series had better plots. It wasn't until the third album that the Monkees even sang together, much less played instuments.
@@janicekociol7702 yes, I agree.
Regarding AB and the teen girls who dissed the 1967 Beatles, it's only because they were blindsided by their evolution because they knew them as the I Want To Hold Your Hand teen girl idols It was mainly the boys who were more accepting of their hippie ,acid dropping change
Where'd you find these clips? I found the music video for Strawberry Fields and Penny Lane on Usenet, but I couldn't find the full reactions.
"We hope you'll be here one week from today, for the Beatles debut on American Bandstand. Their first visit to us direct from England." 1967's version of click-bait. The Beatles never appeared on American Bandstand, and never were supposed to.
Gary Lewis and the Playboy's crowd....squaresville
Up until this point, these kids were used to seeing The Beatles perform in cutsie suits, mop top hair. As far as the music, when your used to hearing them sing "Yesterday", "Eight Days a Week" and "Twist and Shout", "Strawberry Fields" can be a shock to the system the first time you heard it.
Pop music was and is usually more about image than it is about music.
OMG, the reactions to the Beatles...whatever
Beatles all the way!
Yeah, this was the roughly the time when the Beatles transitioned from being a loveable mop-top boy-band to legit serious musicians. It was unavoidable that they would lose a lot of their very young fans but in the process they would be gaining a lot of respect and accolades from older listeners.
"Well kids, they are now altering everything as you know it. Hang on cause it's gonna be one hell of a groovy ride".
Now strawberry fields and penny lane are known as some of the famous and most influential songs of all time
These kids were not even 18 years old yet, some were 15 or 16 years old and it was the late 60s, music and fashion changed a lot since the Beatles were at their peak in the early sixties. That one girl said they look like grandparents and another girl said they Beatles were ugly! What?! Well the Beatles were older by ten or twelve years, they changed their look, looking more groovy than cute and innocent looking and more hairy! These teens were children when the Beatles first became worldwide popular but since it’s the late 60s in this video, these teens have different taste in music, fashion and hairdos. They didn’t see or embrace the Beatles the same way when the teenagers first heard about the Beatles in the early to mid 60s. Music changes rapidly. Even though I was a toddler to 5 years old then... oh my god! Lol... I grew up hearing my Aunt play a lot of Beatles music and I’m still a big fan of their early music, I even saw the LOVE show in Vegas a couple of times, a good friend of ours worked at the Mirage as one of the main security guards, he got us free tickets to see the show, it was amazing! Young teenagers still think anyone over 23 years old, is a grandpa or a grandma! 🤨😬
The american youth behaved very well back then, but didn't have a clue what was going on. The Beatles where in the center of a cultural and social paradigma shift, but this audience and the moderator are mentally still in the mid 1950ties.
Not true
I've been a huge Beatles fan since '64, but I'm not at all surprised by the generally negative reaction to Strawberry Fields and Penny Lane. I was 12 in '67. Took me awhile to adjust to the post mop-top music.
It was completely different. And not just different in a "Rubber Soul/Revolver" kind of way being different from all the pop tunes they did in the early years. I mean, it was like the world losing their virginity when Strawberry Fields Forever came out.
I was eleven in 1967, I loved Strawberry Fields--still do.
I was 12 also. The Beatles mad a smart move because groups like The Dave Clark Five faded away because they did not change.
The first "react" video!
Just the kinda fans The Beatles wanted to get away from,
and now these old " Mop Top " lovers have taken over the world.
Good luck ...
Actually things started to change in 1965, when they tried to play "Yesterday" at a concert somewhere in Europe, and the girls in the audience tried to keep up the shrieking, but even they figured out that it wasn't that kind of a song. During the 1966 tours, they never played any of the tracks from the current Revolver album.
True. But they DID play Paperback Writer and If I Needed Someone live in 1966 (Germany and Japan) which were "Revolver era" songs.
@@Cryo837 If I Needed Someone was from Rubber Soul not Revolver 🤦🏿♂️
Believe it or not, I remember watching this America Bandstand show on Sat.... & I couldn't get enough of The Beatles in the day, still play their music because it's just great music. I remember thinking how shallow they came across and they were the same age as I was!
The Beatles were exercising their freedom of expression , thank God.
We just needed a little time to “once again” catch up. Within a couple of months every popular band out there looked like that and we were all on board. LOL!
Exactly right.
This is interesting because it was at this precise moment in time that the Fab Four was on the threshold of inciting a huge social revolution, although these kids were unaware of it. Although many like Dick Clark thought that Beatles were drying up and on the verge of breaking up, the were at the time busy at work on the Sgt Pepper LP. The legendary album would change the attitudes of many, and these kids themselves (well the guys) would soon start growing mustaches and even beards, despite many of them being turned off by the Beatles wearing them. The Beatles were on the verge of ushering in the hippie era.
Most of these kids are so square, they've got corners.
"I guess you guys aren’t ready for that yet, but your kids are gonna love it"
It crossed my mind some of these kids are dead now while others are geriatrics.
To put this in perspective. Barbara Streisand was only 25 years old when this clip was produced. Today she is still going strong at 76. Trump was 22. Older than many of these kids here on this show. What say you?
@@derekgrrr6982 good point. You''re correct.
@@derekgrrr6982 Trump is a big Beatles fan. He would have been 17 when they appeared on Sullivan. I wonder why he couldn't have gotten a ticket but perhaps he was in the Military Academy at the time. I know Nixon's daughter was there as was Rockefeller's.
I'm wondering if they saw the promo clips in colour in the studio
"Paul from Liverpool, Come at me bro"
Lol Like any of their fans since Revolver on would have went on American Bandstand
I was 9 years old and loving baby youre a rich man and hello goodbye and i am the walrus.
Even I knew the value of this music at that age. These are teanie boppers that just needed time to absorb it.
To be fair, Dick Clark asked them to comment on what they had just _seen_, not on what they had just heard. So they talked about mustaches, not music.