What Critics Wrote About the Beatles

Countless pieces have been written about the 50th anniversary of the Beatles first appearance on the Ed Sullivan Show. One of the most interesting is in the Los Angeles Times and quotes opinions of the group.

Newsweek: "Visually they are a nightmare, tight, dandified Edwardian-Beatnik suits and great pudding bowls of hair. Musically they are a near disaster, guitars and drums slamming out a merciless beat that does away with secondary rhythms, harmony and melody. Their lyrics (punctuated by nutty shouts of "yeah, yeah, yeah") are a catastrophe, a preposterous farrago of Valentine-card romantic sentiments…."

Boston Globe: "They … sound like a group of disorganized amateurs whose voices seem to be fighting each other rather than blending…."

Chicago Tribune: "We think the three B's of music — Bach, Beethoven and Brahms — have nothing really to fear from the Beatles, even though Presley wired them his blessing last night."

Los Angeles Times: With their bizarre shrubbery, the Beatles are obviously a press agent's dream combo. Not even their mothers would claim that they sing well. But the hirsute thickets they affect make them rememberable, and they project a certain kittenish charm which drives the immature, shall we say, ape.

I always appreciate it when news organizations admit they got things wrong and even manage to poke a little fun at themselves.  Needless to say that was the case with the Beatles.