One Direction = Current Beatles?

[Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 257
Forum Member
Aside from the quality of music they produce, a lot of people compared them to Beatles as they brought back the british invasion and got teen girls into liking boyband, not to mention they are a worldwide success story. Do you think in 50-60 years time us or our children will be looking back at them and calling them a classic boyband success? I mean Beatles were huge back then and girls would flock at the airport to see them, now it's been happening with One Direction.
«134

Comments

  • RikScotRikScot Posts: 2,095
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Tas_Has wrote: »
    Aside from the quality of music they produce, a lot of people compared them to Beatles as they brought back the british invasion and got teen girls into liking boyband, not to mention they are a worldwide success story. Do you think in 50-60 years time us or our children will be looking back at them and calling them a classic boyband success? I mean Beatles were huge back then and girls would flock at the airport to see them, now it's been happening with One Direction.


    Don't be ridiculous.
  • MicrokorgMicrokorg Posts: 2,670
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Jog on
  • dee123dee123 Posts: 46,195
    Forum Member
    Tas_Has wrote: »
    Aside from the quality of music they produce, a lot of people compared them to Beatles as they brought back the british invasion and got teen girls into liking boyband, not to mention they are a worldwide success story. Do you think in 50-60 years time us or our children will be looking back at them and calling them a classic boyband success? I mean Beatles were huge back then and girls would flock at the airport to see them, now it's been happening with One Direction.

    Please take those pills the nurse gives you.
  • dodger0703dodger0703 Posts: 1,957
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I am not getting drawn in to the 'who is better argument' but I don't think you can compare the two. One is five lads who sing and dance, the other is 4 lads playing instruments and writing their own songs. Its a bit like comparing Blur and Oasis to Take That or Boyzone
  • CharlotteswebCharlottesweb Posts: 18,680
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    dodger0703 wrote: »
    I am not getting drawn in to the 'who is better argument' but I don't think you can compare the two. One is five lads who sing and dance, the other is 4 lads playing instruments and writing their own songs. Its a bit like comparing Blur and Oasis to Take That or Boyzone

    Its not even that part.

    As someone who lived through Beatlemania right in the middle of the demographic ( I was 13 when please please me came out) 1D are nowhere near the popularity of the Beatles in the 63-66 era.
  • gasheadgashead Posts: 13,807
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    RikScot wrote: »
    Don't be ridiculous.
    Microkorg wrote: »
    Jog on
    dee123 wrote: »
    Please take those pills the nurse gives you.
    Such predictable responses which completely miss the point of the OP. If you have any imagination, try to envisage how OD will be remembered in 50-60 years time. No-one will be remembering them based on the quality of their music, but purely on how many fans they had, their impact on music in general, how many records they shifted and various other intangible qualities. The 'youngsters' today, if they read about The Beatles, are not reading people's subjective opinions of their music, they're reading about 'Beatlemania', which had sod all, or at least not entirely, to do with their music. Some of it was crap. Ok, they wrote it themselves, but it was still crap, but does anyone care about that now? No. The fact the crap is now considered classic is down to Beatlemania keeping them and the records in the public eye for so long. If OD are still remembered in 50 years time, they'll be considered every bit as popular, successful and influential as The Beatles are today. Their perceived lesser quality of music won't even be an issue.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,337
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    No I don't think they are known that well compared to the Beatles. 1D's mania has seemed to cut down recently, like everybody is getting older and they like the more mature sound of pop music. You can't compare the two really as the Beatles played their own instruments etc. Generally I think 1D are known more in Europe/America etc and just mentioned in Asia. In how they will be remembered, probably for breaking a record in terms of cracking the States but apart from that, nope. They don't even get many number ones anymore.
  • MicrokorgMicrokorg Posts: 2,670
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    gashead wrote: »
    Such predictable responses which completely miss the point of the OP. If you have any imagination, try to envisage how OD will be remembered in 50-60 years time. No-one will be remembering them based on the quality of their music, but purely on how many fans they had, their impact on music in general, how many records they shifted and various other intangible qualities. The 'youngsters' today, if they read about The Beatles, are not reading people's subjective opinions of their music, they're reading about 'Beatlemania', which had sod all, or at least not entirely, to do with their music. Some of it was crap. Ok, they wrote it themselves, but it was still crap, but does anyone care about that now? No. The fact the crap is now considered classic is down to Beatlemania keeping them and the records in the public eye for so long. If OD are still remembered in 50 years time, they'll be considered every bit as popular, successful and influential as The Beatles are today. Their perceived lesser quality of music won't even be an issue.
    *grabs popcorn*
    1D wont be remembered at all
  • RikScotRikScot Posts: 2,095
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    gashead wrote: »
    If OD are still remembered in 50 years time, they'll be considered every bit as popular, successful and influential as The Beatles are today. Their perceived lesser quality of music won't even be an issue.

    Yes it will...the quality of the music is what lasts, not how many records they sold.
  • SoupietwistSoupietwist Posts: 1,314
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    gashead wrote: »
    Such predictable responses which completely miss the point of the OP. If you have any imagination, try to envisage how OD will be remembered in 50-60 years time. No-one will be remembering them based on the quality of their music, but purely on how many fans they had, their impact on music in general, how many records they shifted and various other intangible qualities. The 'youngsters' today, if they read about The Beatles, are not reading people's subjective opinions of their music, they're reading about 'Beatlemania', which had sod all, or at least not entirely, to do with their music. Some of it was crap. Ok, they wrote it themselves, but it was still crap, but does anyone care about that now? No. The fact the crap is now considered classic is down to Beatlemania keeping them and the records in the public eye for so long. If OD are still remembered in 50 years time, they'll be considered every bit as popular, successful and influential as The Beatles are today. Their perceived lesser quality of music won't even be an issue.

    The problem here is are One Direction actually that popular? I can honestly say I don't know anyone who is a fan, and personally I don't know any of there songs. I look at the singles chart and see that they have a song at number 4 - as a new entry (with two other new entries charting higher). And seriously you think The Beatles fans was only 'screaming girls'?
  • gasheadgashead Posts: 13,807
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Microkorg wrote: »
    *grabs popcorn*
    1D wont be remembered at all
    No-one can possibly know that.
    RikScot wrote: »
    Yes it will...the quality of the music is what lasts, not how many records they sold.
    Disagree. Like I say, The Beatles put out their fair share of crap. Yellow Submarine? When I'm 64? I Am The Walrus ?! Does it matter now? No. History judges them kindly, Hell even considers them classics.
    The problem here is are One Direction actually that popular? I can honestly say I don't know anyone who is a fan, and personally I don't know any of there songs. I look at the singles chart and see that they have a song at number 4 - as a new entry (with two other new entries charting higher). And seriously you think The Beatles fans was only 'screaming girls'?
    I could name maybe one song, if that, but I'm not their target demographic, and I'm guessinmg you're not either, but I guarantee every schoolgirl you know, and the ones you don't, loves them. I don't know one (via my daughters, nieces, friends etc I hasten to add !) that doesn't. Sound familiar?

    ETA - re. screaming girls. No, it wasn't just them, just as it's not just screaming girls who love OD, but neither band had/ has a huge fan base of middle-age Dad's during their heyday either (if we assume that OD are in or approaching their heyday).
  • HeavenlyHeavenly Posts: 31,915
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    gashead wrote: »
    No-one can possibly no that.


    Disagree. Like I say, The Beatles put out their fair share of crap. Yellow Submarine? When I'm 64? I Am The Walrus ?! Does it matter now? No.

    I wouldn't put I am the Walrus in that category.

    You can get away with a couple of clangers when you have written so many amazing songs.

    Of course, I cannot see into the future but I don't think 1D are going to have a back catalogue to admire and inspire so many musicians in the future.
  • dee123dee123 Posts: 46,195
    Forum Member
    gashead wrote: »
    Such predictable responses which completely miss the point of the OP. If you have any imagination, try to envisage how OD will be remembered in 50-60 years time. No-one will be remembering them based on the quality of their music, but purely on how many fans they had, their impact on music in general, how many records they shifted and various other intangible qualities. The 'youngsters' today, if they read about The Beatles, are not reading people's subjective opinions of their music, they're reading about 'Beatlemania', which had sod all, or at least not entirely, to do with their music. Some of it was crap. Ok, they wrote it themselves, but it was still crap, but does anyone care about that now? No. The fact the crap is now considered classic is down to Beatlemania keeping them and the records in the public eye for so long. If OD are still remembered in 50 years time, they'll be considered every bit as popular, successful and influential as The Beatles are today. Their perceived lesser quality of music won't even be an issue.

    :confused: What ??? You need to take your pills too. Sure The Beatles wrote some crap but that is far outweighed by the good.
    List what you think is crap. I bet it isn't a long list.
  • gasheadgashead Posts: 13,807
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Heavenly wrote: »
    I wouldn't put I am the Walrus in that category.

    You can get away with a couple of clangers when you have written so many amazing songs.

    Of course, I cannot see into the future but I don't think 1D are going to have a back catalogue to admire and inspire so many musicians in the future.
    Exactly. You can absolutely get away with a few stinkers if you offset them with enough genuine classics to ensure you remain popular decades later. Re. the future, are people forgetting that The Beatles lasted for what, ten years? OD have been going for what, two? It's not inconceivable to me that they'll be going for another three or four, and if they similarly keep in music and do their own thing, who's to say the 'legacy' of OD will not be kept alive by virtue of their solo efforts?
  • RikScotRikScot Posts: 2,095
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    [QUOTE=gashead;69618365 It's not inconceivable to me that they'll be going for another three or four, and if they similarly keep in music and do their own thing, who's to say the 'legacy' of OD will not be kept alive by virtue of their solo efforts?[/QUOTE]

    Sure they will...:rolleyes:
  • gasheadgashead Posts: 13,807
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Heavenly wrote: »
    I wouldn't put I am the Walrus in that category.

    You can get away with a couple of clangers when you have written so many amazing songs.

    Of course, I cannot see into the future but I don't think 1D are going to have a back catalogue to admire and inspire so many musicians in the future.
    Deleted. Double post.
  • cnbcwatchercnbcwatcher Posts: 56,681
    Forum Member
    gashead wrote: »
    I could name maybe one song, if that, but I'm not their target demographic, and I'm guessinmg you're not either, but I guarantee every schoolgirl you know, and the ones you don't, loves them. I don't know one (via my daughters, nieces, friends etc I hasten to add !) that doesn't. Sound familiar?

    Makes me glad I'm not at school any more as if I was I probably would be forced to like One Direction even though I can't stand them :eek: I'd probably be laughed at because I didn't like them.
  • HeavenlyHeavenly Posts: 31,915
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    gashead wrote: »
    Exactly. You can absolutely get away with a few stinkers if you offset them with enough genuine classics to ensure you remain popular decades later. Re. the future, are people forgetting that The Beatles lasted for what, ten years? OD have been going for what, two? It's not inconceivable to me that they'll be going for another three or four, and if they similarly keep in music and do their own thing, who's to say the 'legacy' of OD will not be kept alive by virtue of their solo efforts?

    A band could be around for 50 years and not have the impact the Beatles had, in the 8 years they were releasing songs. They changed the face of music. I have nothing against 1D, they have their place, but to say with time, they will have a legacy that will be kept alive by their solo efforts...well I can only go by what I have heard so far....so no, I don't think so.
  • CharlotteswebCharlottesweb Posts: 18,680
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    gashead wrote: »
    I could name maybe one song, if that, but I'm not their target demographic, and I'm guessinmg you're not either, but I guarantee every schoolgirl you know, and the ones you don't, loves them. I don't know one (via my daughters, nieces, friends etc I hasten to add !) that doesn't. Sound familiar?

    When the Beatles debuted on US TV 71 MILLION people tuned in to watch, the most viewed TV show in history at that point, and as a percentage of population the equivalent of around 130 million today.

    It took one giant leap to garner a greater audience 6 years later.

    1D arent even as popular as the Beach Boys were. never mind the Beatles.
  • VabosityVabosity Posts: 2,999
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    gashead wrote: »
    Disagree. Like I say, The Beatles put out their fair share of crap. Yellow Submarine? When I'm 64? I Am The Walrus ?! Does it matter now? No. History judges them kindly, Hell even considers them classics.

    I Am A Walrus is a classic!

    It was experimental, adventurous and innovative both musically and lyrically. Yes, the lyrics are nonsense, but there's a reason for that. John Lennon was amused by the musicologists who tended to over-analyse Beatles music and lyrics, so set out to write the most nonsensical lyrics he could come up with just to wind up those musicologists.

    Personally, I think I Am The Walrus is a work of genius, and just don't get people who think it's crap, but I suppose those people are entitled to their misguided opinions. I just feel sorry for such people.
  • HeavenlyHeavenly Posts: 31,915
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Vabosity wrote: »
    "I Am A Walrus" is a classic!

    It was experimental, adventurous and innovative both musically and lyrically. Yes, the lyrics are nonsense, but there's a reason for that. John Lennon was amused by the musicologists who tended to over-analyse Beatles music and lyrics, so set out to write the most nonsensical lyrics he could come up with just to wind up those musicologists.

    Personally, I think "I Am The Walrus" is a work of genius, and just don't get people who think it's crap, but I suppose those people are entitled to their misguided opinions. I just feel sorry for such people.

    Well said, I agree. :)
  • gasheadgashead Posts: 13,807
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    dee123 wrote: »
    :confused: What ??? You need to take your pills too. Sure The Beatles wrote some crap but that is far outweighed by the good.
    List what you think is crap. I bet it isn't a long list.
    Apart from the three already mentioned, if I consider them objectively I'd add TLAWR, Free As A Bird and I Wanna Hold Your Hand (maybe crap is too strong a word, but not at their best) but ultimately it doesn't mean anything. They wrote 100's and released dozens as singles, so the few I can name OTTOMH count for nothing in the grand scheme of things, but who's to say that OD won't also release a similar amount? It's impossible to objectively compare the two until OD are finished and all members long forgotten but on current form, I'd definiitely say they're on a par with The Beatles at a similar stage. Who knew how they'd pan out?
    RikScot wrote: »
    Sure they will...:rolleyes:
    Can you PM me next week's lottery numbers? Thanks.
  • TejasTejas Posts: 5,027
    Forum Member
    gashead wrote: »
    The 'youngsters' today, if they read about The Beatles, are not reading people's subjective opinions of their music, they're reading about 'Beatlemania', which had sod all, or at least not entirely, to do with their music. Some of it was crap. Ok, they wrote it themselves, but it was still crap, but does anyone care about that now? No. The fact the crap is now considered classic is down to Beatlemania keeping them and the records in the public eye for so long. If OD are still remembered in 50 years time, they'll be considered every bit as popular, successful and influential as The Beatles are today. Their perceived lesser quality of music won't even be an issue.

    That's nonsense... the Beatles are well known for their music. I'm sure loads of kids know plenty of Beatles songs, and the fact that Paul McCartney can play stadium gigs and headline massive festivals largely based on past glories tells you how much time people still have for the tunes. Granted many of them will be the older generation, but there are plenty of younger music fans who enjoy this music too!

    I agree with those who have said that One Direction aren't as massive as they're made out to be... their new single has entered the chart at #4 and is likely to drop straight out of the top 10. Conversely, Eminem released his new track a day later than them and got to #1! So, who is the bigger act?
  • grimtales1grimtales1 Posts: 46,685
    Forum Member
    1D may have lots of fans but surely thats where the comparison to Beatlemania ends.
    'Impact on music in general'? Do me a favour. What impact is this? ;) Even compared to The Beatles early days. The Beatles are known for their music and innovation.
  • HeavenlyHeavenly Posts: 31,915
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    gashead wrote: »
    Apart from the three already mentioned, if I consider them objectively I'd add TLAWR, Free As A Bird and I Wanna Hold Your Hand (maybe crap is too strong a word, but not at their best) but ultimately it doesn't mean anything. They wrote 100's and released dozens as singles, so the few I can name OTTOMH count for nothing in the grand scheme of things, but who's to say that OD won't also release a similar amount?

    It's impossible to objectively compare the two until OD are finished and all members long forgotten but on current form, I'd definiitely say they're on a par with The Beatles at a similar stage. Who knew how they'd pan out?


    Can you PM me next week's lottery numbers? Thanks.

    I am not going to argue with you about what you think is a good or crap song as that's your opinion.

    But I can compare the 2 at a similar stage, as in the quality of music. There is no comparison. I can't comment on anything more than that at this point. :)
Sign In or Register to comment.