Alot of people consider JFK's assassination in November 1963 to be the death of the Fifties, and The Beatles on Ed Sullivan in Feb 1964 as the beginning of the pop cultural Sixties. They happened so close to each other, but do you think the Beatles and the rest of the British Invasion rockers, like The Rolling Stones (the first hard rock band in alot of ways) would've still come out and been as popular without his death? I ask because this stuff was so changeful, and really led to the late '60s hippie culture.

Since it was so close, I'm sure the Beatles would've still been around (I think they were already kinda well known in the UK in 1963 before the US audiences knew about them), but it might've not been as popular. One reason I've heard for their huge success, was that people wanted something new and exciting to get their minds off the tragedy of Kennedy's death and the end of an era.

In a way, it parallels things like MTV pop taking off in 1981 (and especially c. early 1983) after Lennon's death, or even Emo becoming big after the wake of 9/11.

My grandparents have often said that the "era of innocence" ended with the JFK assasination, and I tend to agree with that. That's not to say the '50s and early '60s were an entirely peaceful time, but compared to post-1963 America, it would've certainly seemed alot more peaceful

More than likely The Beatles, Stone's, and the other British Invasion groups would've still been popular, but it's hard to say whether or not they would've had the same level of popularity. I guess another question could be if JFK had not gone to war in Vietnam, how would that have changed things. I'm not sure that, without the anti-war movement the hippie culture would've taken off the way it did.

That's another good point. Some of the biggest changes in recent American History happened with the '60s and early '70s, largely because of Vietnam and other political changes. The civil rights were already beginning by the JFK era, but there was still, say public racism and other things that would've been unheard of ten years later. Between 1963 and 1976 it was literally a different world, and it moved unbelievably fast, too. The hippie movement was a reaction against the war, and like you said, that wouldn't have happened without a war in the first place.

Speaking of the Beatles, I wonder what JFK would've thought of them. He almost seemed Clintonesque in terms of being youthful in his outlook on things (I think he was only about 40 at the time of his death). Maybe pop and rock would've had its 1963-1966 feel for longer - like post-doo wop, but pre-Woodstock and acid rock. Like the poppier British Invasion, Beach Boys and Supremes stuff I could've seen sticking around until maybe the '70s.

JFK had nothing to do with the British Invasion LOL

Whether or not he lived or died, British artists would've still had success in North America

Brian Epstein killed JFK.  :o :o :o

JFK had nothing to do with the British Invasion LOL

Whether or not he lived or died, British artists would've still had success in North America

I agree, The only reason there was a British invasion was because young adults in the U.K. were influenced by American R&B artists like Elvis, Chuck Berry and Muddy Waters NotJFK!

It's really only the close proximity (date-wise) of Kennedy being shot and the Beatles breaking big, that leads people to believe that one event led, or had an influence on the other...

In reality, Capitol poured so much cash into promoting 'I Wanna Hold Your Hand' that, had it failed, it would have gone down as one of the most costliest mistakes in entertainment history...

Does anybody see my point though, about the massive success of The Beatles being at least partially spurred from audiences wanting something happy and upbeat to take their minds off the tragedy of "the loss of innocence" often associated with JFK's assassination? For the record, this is something I've heard from alot of people when they talk about the '60s, so I'm not making it up lol.

It wasn't just their music, it was their image in general. They were such a pop culture phenomenon c. 1964. In alot of ways, I see them as the first "modern" band. They also paved the way for the other British Invasion stars. It was only after they came out, did The Kinks and harder rockers like especially the Rolling Stones get as popular as they did. I don't think they would've been too well received if they were the first of that style. Can you imagine "Satisfaction" or "My Generation" suddenly coming up amongst the dead '50ish-sounding "Stand By Me" and ballad-oriented period that was around from 1959-1963? People probably would've thought they were evil, lol.

My grandparents have often said that the "era of innocence" ended with the JFK assasination, and I tend to agree with that. That's not to say the '50s and early '60s were an entirely peaceful time, but compared to post-1963 America, it would've certainly seemed alot more peaceful

More than likely The Beatles, Stone's, and the other British Invasion groups would've still been popular, but it's hard to say whether or not they would've had the same level of popularity. I guess another question could be if JFK had not gone to war in Vietnam, how would that have changed things. I'm not sure that, without the anti-war movement the hippie culture would've taken off the way it did.
I think the british groups would still have been popular because many of the groups loved the pioneer rock and rollers,and that wouldn't have changed.

Does anybody see my point though, about the massive success of The Beatles being at least partially spurred from audiences wanting something happy and upbeat to take their minds off the tragedy of "the loss of innocence" often associated with JFK's assassination?

It's a nice, romantic thought...but the cold, hard fact of the matter is the 'hype' mostly assisted their sudden, potent success...

The hype was certainly helped along by US DJ's in the know and even Ed Sullivan himself was 'caught up' in a wave of Beatlemania when he visited these shores in 1963, months before Kennedy was shot...so the US market had to crack at some point...

All that was required was the right song and (more importantly) the backing of Capitol (who'd rejected their first four singles!)

The Beatles were also a great success in other countries too, not just America. They were so popular because they were a great band! You may be right about people wanting something new & different in their music but that changes in every generation.  :)

From my mother's own experience, she was 12 years old at the time, and she said it was uplifting after the JFK assanination to have the Beatles come in and bring in this whole new sound to the States. Yes, maybe they were heavily promoted, but I think it was just what we needed as a wounded nation. There's no harm in that.  :)

On another note, Jazz music sorta did the same thing to young U.S. citizens right after World War I. It was something new and exciting, and took our blues away - until World War II  :(

That's another good point. Some of the biggest changes in recent American History happened with the '60s and early '70s, largely because of Vietnam and other political changes. The civil rights were already beginning by the JFK era, but there was still, say public racism and other things that would've been unheard of ten years later. Between 1963 and 1976 it was literally a different world, and it moved unbelievably fast, too. The hippie movement was a reaction against the war, and like you said, that wouldn't have happened without a war in the first place.

Speaking of the Beatles, I wonder what JFK would've thought of them. He almost seemed Clintonesque in terms of being youthful in his outlook on things (I think he was only about 40 at the time of his death). Maybe pop and rock would've had its 1963-1966 feel for longer - like post-doo wop, but pre-Woodstock and acid rock. Like the poppier British Invasion, Beach Boys and Supremes stuff I could've seen sticking around until maybe the '70s.


I agree that JFK's death had nothing to do with the British invasion being popular. What's interesting is that by around 1965/66 a lot of the music in the British Invasion era (think Rubber Soul era Beatles) was beginning to show signs of psychedelia. It's hard to say the path the music of the late 60's would take since the British Invasion influenced so much of the hippie movement. Maybe the acid rock and Woodstock era would have still happened but it would have focused on more creative things rather than being totally consumed with the anti-war protesting. Perhaps there would have been even more rock classics from that period. It seems hard to think that with all this new music appearing that things wouldn't have continued to progress.

I agree, The only reason there was a British invasion was because young adults in the U.K. were influenced by American R&B artists like Elvis, Chuck Berry and Muddy Waters Not JFK!



Good point!

I always wondered this myself, even though it was way before my time, but I do often wonder what would have come to be if certain incidents had not occurred. I also wondered if JFK would have won reelection in 1964 had he not been killed.

The Beatles and Rolling Stones would have achieved some popularity in the states, but I think only to a level more on par with where the Beach Boys were in 1963. The Beach Boys were popular, and a very influential rock band, but it didn't  seem to change the mood of the country, which was still 50's essentially. However, the Beatles probably would not have achieved the extreme level of hysteria that they did if JFK lived. In many ways the Beatles did fill a void left by the assassination. And if JFK did live to win the 1964 election and chosen to withdraw from Vietnam, without a war to protest against, rock music may not have been the force for young people that it was, which would have dramatically changed the American music landscape. The social currents of the times might have been expressed in a different form of music than rock, such as jazz.