Beatles Refused to Play to Segregated Audiences, Contract Reveals

and i almost forgot to say that the BEATLES are argueably the greatest R&R band the world has ever known and i dont forsee that changing in my lifetime..

kind of a silly premis because there was no segregation in the bay area in those years,or any other part of california.it was a standard clause in many bands contracts and i applaud all of those bands for their stance on bigotry but certainly it was not Beatles versus SF and the cow palace.like i said silly premis by a silly writer

The Beatles refusing to perform at the "San Francisco" Cow Palace? Please, that’s a serious thing. I was born and raised in San Francisco. I’ve called the area my home for over 60 years. Just an FYI: there really is no “San Francisco" Cow Palace because, the Cow Palace is located in the San Mateo County City of, Daly City. It is owned by the State of California, and has been operated by the State Department of Agriculture for over 50 years. In regards to the 1965 time frame, the over whelming majority of young Black men and Women were not into the Beatles style of music. They were more into the Motown Sound, that brought us groups like the Temptations, and singers like Smokey Robinson etc. Come to think of it a whole lot of non-Black young people were also not into the Beatles. Many were into groups like the Beach Boys, or other groups who sang about teenage love, hot rods, and beach going. I recall the Beatles concert at the Cow Palace. At the time I was a senior in high school and knew people who attended. I never remember segregation being an issue at the event. If it were an issue I am sure that there would have been a huge multi-racial demonstration against the event. Especially given that the venue is located in an area that has a high percentage of minority residents living near it. In 1965 the Cow Palace had three public housing complexes with- in a few blocks of its location. Much later in my life while working in law enforcement I had occasion to work at the Cow Palace. During my time there I NEVER saw an event that was “segregated”, and I can recall no event that ever was. At one time in history segregation in San Francisco and the Bay Area may have been as prevalent as almost anywhere else in America. However, I don’t recall that being the case as I grew up during the 50s and 60s. For example, during the 50s I lived in a public housing area called Hunters Point. I was probably only one of a few who wasn’t a person of color who lived in what we called “The Projects”. Later on my father was able to earn enough money and my family was able to leave “The Projects”. AS I grew up and went to various schools all of the schools I attended had several people of color attending. It was also during that time (1960s) that the City of San Francisco ended the “district school policy”. That policy allowed only certain students living in specific areas to attend a specific school. The policy was ended because it was “defacto segregation” and the people of San Francisco, and surrounding areas simply did not wish to be part of any type of segregation. During my life I have been exposed to many different cultures, and lifestyles. During my time in military service that I was able to see the difference between how some people who lived in other areas of the USA interacted with others who were not of the same racial group. To this day I don’t understand why it is that one person would treat another person differently simply because of the color of their skin. That inability to understand such behavior is I a product of having grown up in the San Francisco Bay Area. An area that prides itself on diversity. I am proud to say that during my lifetime segregation was NEVER considered to be San Franciscian.

San Francisco was never segregated! That was just The Beatles standard contract. The point of the article was that The Beatles refused to perform for segregated audiences! The contract they found that clause in just happened to be for San Francisco. The Beatles were greatly influenced by black performers and often sang their songs in their early years.The Beatles are the greatest band of all time and they did have a social conscience!

Typical AOL 2011 hyperbole here: The Beatles=great; their stance on this issue=great. But "heroic?" They were about the biggest thing in the world at that point; most young adults of that generation were very pro-civil rights. The Beatles did the right thing and spoke for a generation because they could. No ignorant promoter or venue was going to cower them or sidetrack their rise to musical immortality. Like other posters have said, MANY musicians contributed.

I'm proud to be a Beatles Fan

God bless John Lennon

The Beatles were great, they had the biggest following
among young adults (16-30). Herman's Hermits and Freddie
and the Dreamers were more for the 10-15 year old group
but the real Music afficiandos dug the Stones and the Animals
much more. I went concerts to see all three in 1964, early
'65 and the Stones and Animals audiences were a lot more
sophisticated than Beatles concert goers. Their music was
more sharp edged than the Beatles.

I believe the Young Rascals had similar clauses in their contracts from the same time period as well as a stipulation to have a black performer on the same bill. They had also refused, along with other rock and soul acts, to perform in South Africa.

I'm confused. Were there actually segregated audiences in California in 1965? If so, this is the first time I've heard of it. There weren't in the Northeast, and I doubt there were anywhere in the US outside the South, and even there segregation was on its last legs. i loved the Beatles, but I've read of other artists who refused to perform for segregated audiences in South Africa in the Sixties, where such a stand really was radical.