I'm more likely to want to lynch you for saying that than for suggesting they were just a boyband.
Had they emerged even as little as ten years later with little ditties like I Wanna Your Hold Hand, Please Please Me and I Wanna Hold Your Hand, they would have been considered lightweights.
Had it not been for Beatles creating the template for the pop music that followed the music scene ten years later would probably have been very different anyway, so it's ridiculous to speculate who or what would be considered lightweight in a seventies that had not been preceded by a Beatles-dominated sixties.
And there's absolutely nothing wrong with ditties like "Please Me Me" or "I Wanna Hold Hand". Lightweight perhaps, but mighty fine pop songs. In fact, the latter song is so good you named it twice.
Had it not been for Beatles creating the template for the pop music that followed the music scene ten years later would probably have been very different anyway, so it's ridiculous to speculate who or what would be considered lightweight in a seventies that had not been preceded by a Beatles-dominated sixties.
And there's absolutely nothing wrong with ditties like "Please Me Me" or "I Wanna Hold Hand". Lightweight perhaps, but mighty fine pop songs. In fact, the latter song is so good you named it twice.
I meant to write Love Me Do the second time.
Good pop songs they may be but lightweight little ditties they are.
The Beatles didn't create the template for pop music. Anyone who thinks that hasn't listened to other bands of the time who had already been writing and performing similar material for years before them.
Good pop songs they may be but lightweight little ditties they are.
The Beatles didn't create the template for pop music. Anyone who thinks that hasn't listened to other bands of the time who had already been writing and performing similar material for years before them.
Examples?
"Pop" music isn't a genre, first and foremost. Glen Miller was "pop" music till he took a wrong turn.
@OP: Of course not, all members of the Beatles played instruments.
"Boy bands" are created to make money. All members of a "boy band" sing and/or dance and make teenage girls scream. And none of them leave behind a "legacy".
I like the Beatles, but I find it annoying that they've become one of those seemingly untouchable bands, that noone can criticise ever without being shot down or labelled as musically ignorant. They're iconic and some of the best songs in existance are by the Beatles, but they've been overhyped to an irritating degree. Coming from a later perspective, I prefer a lot more of the Stones music.
, and there was a short piece about boybands featuring that well known intelligent, articulate irishman Louis Walsh..he claimed that Take That, Westlife, Boyzone were just carbon copies of the Beatles.
Is it just me that thinks, with views like that he should be kept away from commenting on music? or is this a well held view?
its a crime that that idiot should be allowed to express such idiotic views.... the blokes a complete arse.
The likes of The Rolling Stones and The Who were far more creative and talented.
The Beatles just came at the right time (and The Stones helped them to become 'acceptable').
t'uther way around m8, the beatles opend the doors for the stones and the who etc... and actually, they werent. the stones, much as i like them, are still playing the same music they did nearly 50 years ago, aptly living up to their name. the beatles style evolved markedly from 'love me do' to 'something'.
From the old footage I seen from them, they seemed to be a band who stood on stage in front of hundreds of screaming girls when they first got popular... kind of like McFly.
However, they then seemingly gained a completely different following.
i wouldnt call mc fly a boyband, as they too are musically totally different to the westlife, boyzone acts.
I like the Beatles, but I find it annoying that they've become one of those seemingly untouchable bands, that noone can criticise ever without being shot down or labelled as musically ignorant. They're iconic and some of the best songs in existance are by the Beatles, but they've been overhyped to an irritating degree. Coming from a later perspective, I prefer a lot more of the Stones music.
because the opinions disrespecting the beatles are largely based on ignorance. sure, they were not perfect, and are eligable for criticism, but when said criticism is levied at them......make it accurate!
i think theres a case where many of the people who werent born and cant remember the beatles SOMETIMES dont 'get' why they are so revered, judging them by more modern standards.
Louis Walsh..he claimed that Take That, Westlife, Boyzone were just carbon copies of the Beatles.
Oh dear, Walsh only says silly things like the above to get publicity.
No, Wanklife and Bogzone are nothing like the Beatles. None of them can play instruments well, if at all, or write classic songs. The only 'boy' band that has ever had any kind of credibility is Take That, who can write classic pop songs. But, the chances of TT turning into a fully fledged rock band who influence the world for the best part of 50 years, is about as likely as Lord Lucan winning the Grand National on Shergar!
He did most of the writing on the songs he sung but the songs that McCartney sung had little input from Lennon. In the last few years of the band the amount of times they wrote together you could count on the fingers of one hand.
Indeed. I believe that while Lennon and McCartney, and to some extent Harrison, did influence each others writing, usually whoever sang the song wrote the lions share. The one great example of Lennon and McCartney truly writing a song together would be 'A Day In The Life' and that is really two separate songs cobbled together quite brilliantly.... which is where George Martin came in.
Good pop songs they may be but lightweight little ditties they are.
The Beatles didn't create the template for pop music. Anyone who thinks that hasn't listened to other bands of the time who had already been writing and performing similar material for years before them.
I cant recall anyone else playing their own songs in this style for years before The Beatles.
Performing their own music was the big breakthrough. They were original, and although the songs are short and simple compared to what has followed, at the time they were revolutionary.
People should look at their output over the 7 years they were at the top. The transformation, the progress, and the quantity is quite remarkable.
They were at the forefront, and are still a major influence.
because the opinions disrespecting the beatles are largely based on ignorance. sure, they were not perfect, and are eligable for criticism, but when said criticism is levied at them......make it accurate!
i think theres a case where many of the people who werent born and cant remember the beatles SOMETIMES dont 'get' why they are so revered, judging them by more modern standards.
But people are allowed to not be fans of them, and should be able to do this without the abuse that they get from some corners of Beatles world.
And, I know plenty of people who were around, my Mum for one, during Beatlemania who were not fans and would have rather listened to The Stones, The Kinks, The Who et al so that is a rather misjudged comment.
But people are allowed to not be fans of them, and should be able to do this without the abuse that they get from some corners of Beatles world.
And, I know plenty of people who were around, my Mum for one, during Beatlemania who were not fans and would have rather listened to The Stones, The Kinks, The Who et al so that is a rather misjudged comment.
I agree. Whilst I can appreciate what they did and what they achieved both as a band and individually, I would never consider myself a fan of their music.
As for Louis Walsh, he really is talking nonsense.
But people are allowed to not be fans of them, and should be able to do this without the abuse that they get from some corners of Beatles world.
And, I know plenty of people who were around, my Mum for one, during Beatlemania who were not fans and would have rather listened to The Stones, The Kinks, The Who et al so that is a rather misjudged comment.
Being a Beatles fan does not mean a person does not like those other bands you mention, and many more.
I grew up with The Beatles, and loved them, but I prefer The Who, Pink Floyd and a few others above them.
You cant detract from what The Beatles actually did though, and for someone to class them as a boyband is absolute nonsense.
I suppose this article kind of fits in with the theme of the thread.
I can understand what Macca means. What I loved about the Beatles is that the roles within the band were not totally restrictive. Four-headed monster pretty much sums it up.
Although maybe that was also part of the problem, it got to a point where they could make their own songs without any contributions from the others at all.
But people are allowed to not be fans of them, and should be able to do this without the abuse that they get from some corners of Beatles world.
And, I know plenty of people who were around, my Mum for one, during Beatlemania who were not fans and would have rather listened to The Stones, The Kinks, The Who et al so that is a rather misjudged comment.
you are confusing fact with opinion....
factually they were the greatest ever group, who did become the greatest influence on pop music ever...
however everyone has every right not to like their material, im not aware of anyone being abused for that!..., but saying they are 'overrated' is a stupid opinion because factually they arnt.
The Beatles didn't create the template for pop music. Anyone who thinks that hasn't listened to other bands of the time who had already been writing and performing similar material for years before them.
nonsense....
whilst they might not have been the very first to adopt the 'group' format, percussion, lead,rhythm, bass guitars, they certainly popularised it. all groups that came after employed that format... so to all intents and purposes they did create the pop group template.
I love Westlife's music but I am under no illusions about them. They are a manufactured group (not band!) who follow a formulatic successful business model to produce cheesy, feel good music. They are nothing like the Beatles. Westlife carved out a niche for themselves and will be around for a long time to come but their appeal will end with they break up. The Beatles hit hard and fast, they didn't survive together as long as Westlife have but their legacy will out live them.
I like the Beatles, but I find it annoying that they've become one of those seemingly untouchable bands, that noone can criticise ever without being shot down or labelled as musically ignorant. They're iconic and some of the best songs in existance are by the Beatles, but they've been overhyped to an irritating degree. Coming from a later perspective, I prefer a lot more of the Stones music.
I agree with this completely. I like the Beatles too but I don't even consider them to be 'one of' those untouchable bands/musicians, they are pretty much the only one. It's acceptable to criticise Elvis, Abba, MJ, Queen, Sinatra, U2, etc. but expressing a dislike for the Beatles is actually a criminal offence. If you made a thread about anyone else being overrated you wouldn't have two pages of 'YOU ARE MUSICALLY IGNORANT'/'YOU ARE FACTUALLY INCORRECT'/etc.
Maybe Louis Walsh should argue just one of the points of difference between Westlife and The Beatles. The fact that The Beatles wrote every song they sung and Westlife I dont think have ever sung anything except cover songs.
I don't see there is factual evidence that they are the greatest ever group - please show me this.
I don't dispute the influence they have had on people however.
try looking at any poll, especially the rolling stone mag poll who asked 850 leading musicians, critics, etc to name their top ten most influencial acts of all time, findings of the nominations became the overall top 100 result. the beatles obviously were top.
I agree with this completely. I like the Beatles too but I don't even consider them to be 'one of' those untouchable bands/musicians, they are pretty much the only one. It's acceptable to criticise Elvis, Abba, MJ, Queen, Sinatra, U2, etc. but expressing a dislike for the Beatles is actually a criminal offence. If you made a thread about anyone else being overrated you wouldn't have two pages of 'YOU ARE MUSICALLY IGNORANT'/'YOU ARE FACTUALLY INCORRECT'/etc.
thats rubbish...ive never seen anyone being criticised for not liking them! hell theres tracks i really dislike...
again theres the confusion between personal opinion and facts.. tell me...how can the group that is widely acknowleged as being the greatest influence on music be called 'overrated'?... theres a difference between not liking them and suggesting they are overrated.
say you dont like them, plenty dont, fair play, but they cannot be discribed as 'overrated' or a 'boyband'.
I love Westlife's music but I am under no illusions about them. They are a manufactured group (not band!) who follow a formulatic successful business model to produce cheesy, feel good music. They are nothing like the Beatles. Westlife carved out a niche for themselves and will be around for a long time to come but their appeal will end with they break up. The Beatles hit hard and fast, they didn't survive together as long as Westlife have but their legacy will out live them.
Totally agree!
Westlife & Boyzone never have, and I highly doubt ever will, compare themselves to The Beatles. Louis Walsh likes to be controversial, saying things he knows people will talk about and discuss. I doubt he really believes that and I'm almost certain the acts he is talking about don't.
Comments
It included something like "music to make middle-aged women moist".
Had it not been for Beatles creating the template for the pop music that followed the music scene ten years later would probably have been very different anyway, so it's ridiculous to speculate who or what would be considered lightweight in a seventies that had not been preceded by a Beatles-dominated sixties.
And there's absolutely nothing wrong with ditties like "Please Me Me" or "I Wanna Hold Hand". Lightweight perhaps, but mighty fine pop songs. In fact, the latter song is so good you named it twice.
I meant to write Love Me Do the second time.
Good pop songs they may be but lightweight little ditties they are.
The Beatles didn't create the template for pop music. Anyone who thinks that hasn't listened to other bands of the time who had already been writing and performing similar material for years before them.
Examples?
"Pop" music isn't a genre, first and foremost. Glen Miller was "pop" music till he took a wrong turn.
"Boy bands" are created to make money. All members of a "boy band" sing and/or dance and make teenage girls scream. And none of them leave behind a "legacy".
its a crime that that idiot should be allowed to express such idiotic views.... the blokes a complete arse.
t'uther way around m8, the beatles opend the doors for the stones and the who etc... and actually, they werent. the stones, much as i like them, are still playing the same music they did nearly 50 years ago, aptly living up to their name. the beatles style evolved markedly from 'love me do' to 'something'.
i do... because westlife, take that, boyzone etc are boybands and are clearly not similar musically. to call the beatles a boyband is derogatory.
i wouldnt call mc fly a boyband, as they too are musically totally different to the westlife, boyzone acts.
because the opinions disrespecting the beatles are largely based on ignorance. sure, they were not perfect, and are eligable for criticism, but when said criticism is levied at them......make it accurate!
i think theres a case where many of the people who werent born and cant remember the beatles SOMETIMES dont 'get' why they are so revered, judging them by more modern standards.
Absolutely untrue :rolleyes:
Oh dear, Walsh only says silly things like the above to get publicity.
No, Wanklife and Bogzone are nothing like the Beatles. None of them can play instruments well, if at all, or write classic songs. The only 'boy' band that has ever had any kind of credibility is Take That, who can write classic pop songs. But, the chances of TT turning into a fully fledged rock band who influence the world for the best part of 50 years, is about as likely as Lord Lucan winning the Grand National on Shergar!
Indeed. I believe that while Lennon and McCartney, and to some extent Harrison, did influence each others writing, usually whoever sang the song wrote the lions share. The one great example of Lennon and McCartney truly writing a song together would be 'A Day In The Life' and that is really two separate songs cobbled together quite brilliantly.... which is where George Martin came in.
I cant recall anyone else playing their own songs in this style for years before The Beatles.
Performing their own music was the big breakthrough. They were original, and although the songs are short and simple compared to what has followed, at the time they were revolutionary.
People should look at their output over the 7 years they were at the top. The transformation, the progress, and the quantity is quite remarkable.
They were at the forefront, and are still a major influence.
But people are allowed to not be fans of them, and should be able to do this without the abuse that they get from some corners of Beatles world.
And, I know plenty of people who were around, my Mum for one, during Beatlemania who were not fans and would have rather listened to The Stones, The Kinks, The Who et al so that is a rather misjudged comment.
I agree. Whilst I can appreciate what they did and what they achieved both as a band and individually, I would never consider myself a fan of their music.
As for Louis Walsh, he really is talking nonsense.
Being a Beatles fan does not mean a person does not like those other bands you mention, and many more.
I grew up with The Beatles, and loved them, but I prefer The Who, Pink Floyd and a few others above them.
You cant detract from what The Beatles actually did though, and for someone to class them as a boyband is absolute nonsense.
I can understand what Macca means. What I loved about the Beatles is that the roles within the band were not totally restrictive. Four-headed monster pretty much sums it up.
Rolling Stones 'envious of Beatles' singing'
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/music/news/a321280/rolling-stones-envious-of-beatles-singing.html
Although maybe that was also part of the problem, it got to a point where they could make their own songs without any contributions from the others at all.
you are confusing fact with opinion....
factually they were the greatest ever group, who did become the greatest influence on pop music ever...
however everyone has every right not to like their material, im not aware of anyone being abused for that!..., but saying they are 'overrated' is a stupid opinion because factually they arnt.
personally i prefered the yardbirds
nonsense....
whilst they might not have been the very first to adopt the 'group' format, percussion, lead,rhythm, bass guitars, they certainly popularised it. all groups that came after employed that format... so to all intents and purposes they did create the pop group template.
I don't see there is factual evidence that they are the greatest ever group - please show me this.
I don't dispute the influence they have had on people however.
I agree with this completely. I like the Beatles too but I don't even consider them to be 'one of' those untouchable bands/musicians, they are pretty much the only one. It's acceptable to criticise Elvis, Abba, MJ, Queen, Sinatra, U2, etc. but expressing a dislike for the Beatles is actually a criminal offence. If you made a thread about anyone else being overrated you wouldn't have two pages of 'YOU ARE MUSICALLY IGNORANT'/'YOU ARE FACTUALLY INCORRECT'/etc.
Maybe Louis Walsh should argue just one of the points of difference between Westlife and The Beatles. The fact that The Beatles wrote every song they sung and Westlife I dont think have ever sung anything except cover songs.
try looking at any poll, especially the rolling stone mag poll who asked 850 leading musicians, critics, etc to name their top ten most influencial acts of all time, findings of the nominations became the overall top 100 result. the beatles obviously were top.
thats rubbish...ive never seen anyone being criticised for not liking them! hell theres tracks i really dislike...
again theres the confusion between personal opinion and facts.. tell me...how can the group that is widely acknowleged as being the greatest influence on music be called 'overrated'?... theres a difference between not liking them and suggesting they are overrated.
say you dont like them, plenty dont, fair play, but they cannot be discribed as 'overrated' or a 'boyband'.
If you honestly think he did almost ALL of the song writing clearly you don't have a clue.
Totally agree!
Westlife & Boyzone never have, and I highly doubt ever will, compare themselves to The Beatles. Louis Walsh likes to be controversial, saying things he knows people will talk about and discuss. I doubt he really believes that and I'm almost certain the acts he is talking about don't.