Were the Beatles just another 'boyband'?

13»

Comments

  • johnythefoxjohnythefox Posts: 1,021
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    siriusrose wrote: »
    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.

    I personally think you are giving him far too much credit, he just comes across as really thick and in-articulate. How he ever became successful is a complete mystery. I have an admittedly irrational hatred of all boybands but I suppose I have to accept that more fool those who buy their records:(
  • mushymanrobmushymanrob Posts: 17,992
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I personally think you are giving him far too much credit, he just comes across as really thick and in-articulate. How he ever became successful is a complete mystery. I have an admittedly irrational hatred of all boybands but I suppose I have to accept that more fool those who buy their records:(

    gotta fully agree.... you just have to listen to walsh on txf and his stupidity is soon revealed.
  • Devon MilesDevon Miles Posts: 6,654
    Forum Member
    Calling the Beatles a boyband is kinda preposterous but i can see that a part of the Beatles appeal did create a template for modern boy / girl bands. In that, suddenly, instead of one front man backed by a faceless band you had instead 4 distinct personalities that appealed to different people. I.E you had 'cheeky' Paul, 'more coarse; John, 'thoughtful' George and erm.. Ringo!
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 5,219
    Forum Member
    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.

    Frankie Vallli and the Four Seasons got there first, although they had a keyboardist instead of a second guitarist. As far as I can tell, they were among the first of the pop groups to combine singing and playing instruments, rather than performing with a backing band.
  • mushymanrobmushymanrob Posts: 17,992
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Mallaha wrote: »
    Frankie Vallli and the Four Seasons got there first, although they had a keyboardist instead of a second guitarist. As far as I can tell, they were among the first of the pop groups to combine singing and playing instruments, rather than performing with a backing band.

    there were several, buddy holly and the crickets too, the four seasons didnt have chart success though until after the beatles hit. i think the reason the beatles are considered the 'first' is because they created a new sound (or help create....beat) . its possible that if 'beat' didnt take off the beatles would be a sideline in music history. its the combination of the music and format that they popularised and is why (especially in the uk) they are considered the first.

    oddly enough, theres a rather spooky simularity with punk.. the americans may well have been the first to employ the pop group format, and they were the first to create the punk 'sound'.... but it took inspirational brits to animate them!
  • GaditanoGaditano Posts: 2,224
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    At the risk of being picky. the Four Seasons had lots of hits in the US before the Beatles.
  • mushymanrobmushymanrob Posts: 17,992
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Gaditano wrote: »
    At the risk of being picky. the Four Seasons had lots of hits in the US before the Beatles.

    ..... so did other groups..

    ive never heard the four seasons or other groups being cited as creating the template for the pop group... however the crickets got the nod, and they were an influence on the beatles, unlike the four seasons....unless theres an obscure bit of info somewhere where lennon/mccartney pay tribute to them.

    i think the four seasons early style didnt appeal to the uk market, come to think of it i cant recall them being anything special from an american point of view. when they were having early hits most music was about rock n roll with early elvis, chuck berry, little richard etc. although i have no idea just how big the 4s were in the usa at this time, nor how americans regarded them...
  • maninthequeuemaninthequeue Posts: 2,479
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Gaditano wrote: »
    At the risk of being picky. the Four Seasons had lots of hits in the US before the Beatles.

    The Four Seasons first hit was their autumn 1962 chart topping single "Sherry". The same time The Beatles Parlophone debut single "Love Me Do" was in the singles chart.

    Because of the Beatles (arrogant?) attitude that they would not promote themselves in the USA until America wanted them they did not release a proper single their until January 1964 with "I Want To Hold Your Hand".

    More tellingly it was no coincidence the minute The Beatles set foot in the USA, the Four Seasons career rapidly dropped off (after 3 #1s & then 2 #3's in their first 5 proper singles) save the occasional big hits (Rag Doll; Let's Hang On; etc).
  • maninthequeuemaninthequeue Posts: 2,479
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    ..... so did other groups..

    ive never heard the four seasons or other groups being cited as creating the template for the pop group... however the crickets got the nod, and they were an influence on the beatles, unlike the four seasons....unless theres an obscure bit of info somewhere where lennon/mccartney pay tribute to them.

    i think the four seasons early style didnt appeal to the uk market, come to think of it i cant recall them being anything special from an american point of view. when they were having early hits most music was about rock n roll with early elvis, chuck berry, little richard etc. although i have no idea just how big the 4s were in the usa at this time, nor how americans regarded them...

    You are spot on. The Beatles took their name from a homage to that other insect group The Crickets except they added an A and removed a E from their name to reference the the basic unit of time in music.

    They were much more influenced by American Rock'n'Roll music rather than vocal harmonies, and they certainly were not too big fans of the falsetto harmonies; and John & Paul were not fans of Doo Wop so they would not have been influenced by The Four Seasons compared to other more Rock'n'Roll acts; and early Motown; and soul records by the likes of Sam Cooke & The Shirelles.

    In addition the liked the name The Beatles because it sounds like "The Beat All's" which is what they set out specifically to do, which was to become the biggest act in the world .... hence their name is arguably the most apt name in popular music ..... which is why it does my head in when people on the internet bitch about acts wanting to achieve a similar objective.
  • JohnnyForgetJohnnyForget Posts: 24,061
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    More tellingly it was no coincidence the minute The Beatles set foot in the USA, the Four Seasons career rapidly dropped off (after 3 #1s & then 2 #3's in their first 5 proper singles) save the occasional big hits (Rag Doll; Let's Hang On; etc).

    Interesting too that once the Beatles had split up, the career of the Four Seasons suddenly had a renaissance in the Seventies and they had massive hits like "December 63", "Who Loves You" and "Silver Star".
  • Dino MDino M Posts: 1,572
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I just find it incredibly ridiculous that Louis Walsh is still trying to associate Westlife and Boyzone with The Beatles.

    The fact is, The Beatles (argue it out amongst yourselves who wrote more or Lennon did this and McCartney did that) but together they still wrote their own music, where all Westlife and Boyzone have done mostly is sing little known songs from country and western stars, as mainly thier songs are cover versions of other peoples songs.

    I wonder how many instruments or songs the members of Westlife or Boyzone can play compared to The Beatles, as prancing around on stage, singing cover versions whilst dressed like rejects from the Gay Pride carnival, do not make them anywhere near comparable to one of the greatest and possibly the most influential bands ever.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,269
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    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'.

    Do you know what the term 'overrated' means? It tends to be used in cases where lots of people rate somebody so I think it fits perfectly in this case for anyone who disagrees on how good The Beatles were.

    And polls don't mean anything - Nick Clegg was the favourite of the party leaders in the 'polls' after their televised debates and he lost seats in the election. Polls are not fact, they are made up of opinions so would you care to give a true example of fact?

    I apologise, by the way, if you feel I am being even remotely difficult but I get tired of feeling demonised for daring to have an opinion on this band that happens to go against what the majority thinks.
  • mushymanrobmushymanrob Posts: 17,992
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Hazeltree wrote: »
    Do you know what the term 'overrated' means? It tends to be used in cases where lots of people rate somebody so I think it fits perfectly in this case for anyone who disagrees on how good The Beatles were.

    And polls don't mean anything - Nick Clegg was the favourite of the party leaders in the 'polls' after their televised debates and he lost seats in the election. Polls are not fact, they are made up of opinions so would you care to give a true example of fact?

    I apologise, by the way, if you feel I am being even remotely difficult but I get tired of feeling demonised for daring to have an opinion on this band that happens to go against what the majority thinks.

    overrated = rated more highly then their true position. the definition you use means popular! you cannot 'overrate' the act that is widely acknowleged as the greatest act ever in music.

    polls do mean something, they are possibly the most reliable test you can get to determine someones popularity. the poll i refered to was conducted by the well respected rolling stone mag, and asked people who know music, not the general public. the beatles topped that poll by being voted for by their contemporaries, people who have a deeper knowlege of music and can fully appreciate what they are worth.

    ok i accept that that poll was made up of opinions, but doesnt that make it a fact? the fact that out of 850 people who know their music voted the beatles the most influencial artist of all time?... i mean, how else can you judge it? and who esle is their to claim that title?

    no probls, you arnt being deliberately obtuse but have a real issue that deserves proper discussion. :)

    like i said, everyones entitled to an opinion, everyones free to not like their music, they are personal opinions... but saying they are a boyband or are overrated isnt true.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 4
    Forum Member
    I'm in need of your help, music geniuses!

    This is an 'Alernative/Indie' song from the mid to late 90's,
    It has the same feel as The Coral - Pass It On...See Link
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rmo4Y6Bgzjo


    I am unaware of the lyrics and name of the band.

    It was a male voice, with the sound of a cross between a crooner and an indie band.

    If you could let me know any of your suggestions, i would be ETERNALLY gratefull!

    Many thanks

    RamonaShamona
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 3,245
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Hazeltree wrote: »
    Do you know what the term 'overrated' means? It tends to be used in cases where lots of people rate somebody so I think it fits perfectly in this case for anyone who disagrees on how good The Beatles were.

    And polls don't mean anything - Nick Clegg was the favourite of the party leaders in the 'polls' after their televised debates and he lost seats in the election. Polls are not fact, they are made up of opinions so would you care to give a true example of fact?

    I apologise, by the way, if you feel I am being even remotely difficult but I get tired of feeling demonised for daring to have an opinion on this band that happens to go against what the majority thinks.

    "They have had more number one albums, 15, on the UK charts and held down the top spot longer, 174 weeks, than any other musical act."

    I guess one could argue that even a chart is a poll of sorts. But without stipulating what you would accept as unequivocally defining "fact" and "greatest" then "I don't see there is factual evidence that they are the greatest ever group - please show me this" becomes (no offence intended) ... disingenuous? :o

    HTH (I'm not a "fan" :))
Sign In or Register to comment.