Why do I keep seeing articles with titles relating to the above?! What is wrong with music journalism today? The music industry today would be unrecognisable to those groundbreaking acts and producers of the 60s yet lazy journalists see fit to compare acts such as One Direction with The Beatles based simply on record sales.

I remember articles comparing Westlife to The Beatles when they overtook them with their amount of UK number one singles. As a fan of music in general, I take offence to these comparisons being banded about willy nilly. Back in the sixties, you could only buy singles and albums on one format and you had to pop along to the shop to get them. These days, there's several formats, several ways of purchasing, whereby you don't even have to leave your sofa. Kids also have more pocket money, hence all these manufactured, baby-faced, talentless twots in the charts.

We are going to see these kinds of records being broken contantly as time progresses, so to keep comparing every band with The Beatles every time one of their records set over 40 years ago is broken, seems utterly pointless, not to mention misleading to millions of young 'music fans' today.

Where have you seen an article claiming they are "bigger than The Beatles"? Surely no journalist is foolish enough to suggest that

here

here

here

and here


Sadly, I could go on and on but that's enough of that pap eh?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wern't The Beatles marketed as a boyband until they discovered drugs?

Yes this is very very premature, and I am no fan of the band or this type of music, but fair play to them (or the marketing team) getting their debut album to number one in America.

How embarrassing. I have no idea why the mainstream media is desperately trying to shove One Direction down our throats. Sure their achievements in America can be celebrated but this is level of hype is absolutely ridiculous.

If I was an editor I would sack every one of those journos who wrote those articles.

The term boyband wasn't used until long after the Beatles.
They were a rock n roll band or 'beat combo'

I dont think they mean in terms of sales (that would be impossible), but in terms of how quickly they've become known over the world, dont forget, its a lot easier to get to know foreign artists these days thanks to the internet, The Beatles didnt have that, and so i imagine it would have been a slower process for them to get their songs known in different parts of the world.

I think taking offence is a bit much to be honest.

Nowhere does anyone say they are better than the beatles. They are merely stating facts, that 1D made it big in America, quicker than the Beatles. Nothing to say it's down to talent or disguising the fact the industry is different now.

Just seems like snobbery from OP to be honest. 1D are pretty average but they've done really well, they should be allowed to enjoy their success.

As the OP said it's just a lazy description that's dragged out whenever a UK or Irish boy band break some kind of record. I seem to recall the same thing happening when Take That hit it big and they broke a record for consecutive UK no. 1's. Obviously, there's going to be a certain amount of hyperbole in the press but a claim of One Direction (or Take That, Westlife, etc.) being bigger than The Beatles is nonsense and that's not in any way undermining their achievement this week. Perhaps a more apt description, although still an exaggeration, would be something along the lines of 'it's like Beatlemania all over again'.

How long I wonder until One Direction make their LSD record?

They were also far more progressive in their early days than a lot of boybands or beat combos of the day IMO. What would you class The Kinks as? You Really Got Me is quite progressive - early metal

I'd question the sanity of anyone who thinks OD are in any way comparable to The Beatles

None of the bands that kicked off at that time were considered or could be considered boybands.
The Beatles, the Kinks, the Stones, Dave Clark Five and loads more were rock n' roll bands who mostly wrote their own stuff with a selection of cover versions.
They played instruments and a lot of them had been playing clubs and gigs for years before breaking through to the hit parade.
Some of them, like your example the Kinks
Would actually Develop a new sound, for want of a better way of putting it, which was an early metal and in some circles classed as the first heavy metal record.

None of them were put together from a marketing meeting to dance about to songs they can't sing live and didn't write.

Amen to that.

Completely agree! I don't see how they can take themselves seriously

when you can show me that every one of their albums is still selling bucketloads, their influence can still be seen in new music, they are quoted as being influences on the global stars of the day and they have changed the face of and direction of pop music in 50 years time.... then yeah, they may be bigger than the beatles

until then i think they will remain what they are, an overhyped, manufactured bunch of puppets whose throwaway 'pop' will be long forgotten in a couple of years following the inevitable 'one getting married, one finding drugs sex and devil worship, one coming out as gay to there being absolutely no surprise that they are and the one who gets too big for his boots and enters into doomed to fail solo career before group split' style shennanigans

I like the way the OP referred to 1D as One Dimension in the thread title

[quote=Theshane;57290508]None of the bands that kicked off at that time were considered or could be considered boybands.
The Beatles, the Kinks, the Stones, Dave Clark Five and loads more were rock n' roll bands who mostly wrote their own stuff with a selection of cover versions.
They played instruments and a lot of them had been playing clubs and gigs for years before breaking through to the hit parade.
Some of them, like your example the Kinks
Would actually Develop a new sound, for want of a better way of putting it, which was an early metal and in some circles classed as the first heavy metal record.

None of them were put together from a marketing meeting to dance about to songs they can't sing live and didn't write.[/QUOTE]

*cough* The Monkees
Actually they CAN sing live and you and everyone else can stop dissing acts who dont write their own songs....*cough* Elvis
And the OP really needs to get out more if what a few people pretending to be journalists write is upsetting him. They are just trying to put eyecatching headlines out there so their articles are read. What they are REALLY saying is that 1D have done something that NO British group has ever done, INCLUDING the biggest band ever. Kudos to ID and I hope they make the most of it as the fickle kids of today will soon find someone else to love,

[quote=shackfan;57294369]
The one and only reason 1D have got anywhere is because of how they look, it has got nothing whatsoever to do with Talent or Ability.

[quote=Weigh-Man;57294678]
I have to agree but note that The Beatles also sold the image as well. The difference is just that The Beatles changed the course of popular music, writing their own songs, experimenting musically and contextually and influencing everyone who came after. It's not just about sales.

Simon Cowell threw them together in an afternoon when he was bored of looking at the ugly ones and decided to create a hybrid of cu*t soup to please the stupid teenage girl market. His plan worked. The end.

[quote=shackfan;57294369]
Um. Can you point out anywhere that I mentioned The Monkees or Elvis?
And as we are talking about a British act neither of those ate relevant.
And I'll diss who ever I like thank you very much.

[quote=mgvsmith;57295410]
I think the difference is that The Beatles were an actual group though.
They'd been pals for years. They'd played gigs for years.
They changed from leather gear to suits. They didn't change their music or how they performed.
It's not quiet the same as these guys did.

It does tend to grate. lol

However I sense that these articles are just trolling to try and get a reaction out of people.
Whenever a new movie or music act comes out they are always billed as being bigger than this or that, and all this does is build up rivalries between fanbases.
Seems like a waste of effort really.

Doubtful 1D really believe they are the next Beatles.
Anyone who does should set their expectations a little bit lower.

Interesting, I agree you couldn't call The Beatles a boyband as they certainly put together in that way, and also with the part in bold

I just hate the fact Louis Tomlinsons making money and fame. He went to my school and was always on about how much of a sucessfull singer he'd one day be (we are now eating our words unfortunately) and his ego was big enough when we were doing a comprehensive school production of Grease and he got the lead role of Danny. I hate to imagine the size of his ego now, and before anyone accuses me of being bitter and jealous can I just say I am bitter and jealous

If One Direction are bigger than The Beatles and The Beatles were bigger than Jesus does that mean One Direction are bigger than God