|
||||||||
One Dimension "bigger than The Beatles"... |
![]() |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#26 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,601
|
Quote:
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 He seems very grounded and humble in interviews...unless we don't know something! maybe he's grown out of it? You should get in touch with him.. As long as you're not buying their stuff then you're not giving them money, so feel the same. The only UK pop acts that come to mind that i think deserve my money are the sensational Girls Aloud, the talented Will Young and the poptastic S Club 7 of whom i have bought all their records and well worth it, and i don't mind them getting rich I would rather chuck my £1 in the gutter than give it to The wanted...if you want cocky that is one bunch of ego maniacs. One Direction aren't as bad, but not far off. JLS Aston is another good example. One thing i will admit the One Direction album is pop-perfect and i listen to it on Spotify but would never buy it and give them money. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#27 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 5,071
|
Quote:
The term boyband wasn't used until long after the Beatles.
They were a rock n roll band or 'beat combo' yeah very rock n roll the beatles early stuff was aimed at screaming teenage girls, nothing rock n roll about also didn't the beatles mime on TV shows much like boybands ![]() The beatles early stuff no matter what music snobs say was pop music aimed at young teenage girls ala beetlemania. Now the term boyband was around back then as so many people keep telling me, but intodays terms they were the 2st boyband and i respect that. The later stuff was more rock and i agree with that tag. I just dont like how beatles fans use there later material to define the bands entire back catalogue |
|
|
|
|
|
#28 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,127
|
Quote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pn_Fch5uCBk&feature=fvst
yeah very rock n roll the beatles early stuff was aimed at screaming teenage girls, nothing rock n roll about also didn't the beatles mime on TV shows much like boybands ![]() The beatles early stuff no matter what music snobs say was pop music aimed at young teenage girls ala beetlemania. Now the term boyband was around back then as so many people keep telling me, but intodays terms they were the 2st boyband and i respect that. The later stuff was more rock and i agree with that tag. I just dont like how beatles fans use there later material to define the bands entire back catalogue The only thing One Direction can be compared to is the Monkees |
|
|
|
|
|
#29 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,740
|
Quote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pn_Fch5uCBk&feature=fvst
yeah very rock n roll the beatles early stuff was aimed at screaming teenage girls, nothing rock n roll about also didn't the beatles mime on TV shows much like boybands ![]() The beatles early stuff no matter what music snobs say was pop music aimed at young teenage girls ala beetlemania. Now the term boyband was around back then as so many people keep telling me, but intodays terms they were the 2st boyband and i respect that. The later stuff was more rock and i agree with that tag. I just dont like how beatles fans use there later material to define the bands entire back catalogue She loves you is a rock n roll record. Their music attracted teenage girls. The Beetlemania phenomenon was a surprise to everyone involved. They didn't set out for that. And who was using their later catalogue to define anything? From Please Please Me right throught to Beatles for sale, which is pretty weak, all their albums are pretty damn good. Rock n roll songs, ballads and even some musical covers. But the songs in there, She Loves You, From me To You, Hard Days Night, This Boy, and probably about a dozen more are stone cold classics. And on several occasions those records were ground breaking for their day. Now once they got to Rubber Soul, then things changed. And from then to Abbey Road every album is arguably a stone cold classic. And I hate using quotes from other sources to back up, what is essentially an opinion, but this months Q has a line about the Beatles that's quite true. I'm paraphrasing but the gist is the same. The Beatles are probably underrated because what ever you've heard about them is true but when you listen to them they are actually better than you've heard. |
|
|
|
|
|
#30 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 301
|
All that One Direction have done is to enter the USA Album
Chart at No.1, with their first Album. Because The Beatles did not do that, (with their 1st Album), 'The Sun', etc. started a silly hype campaign about them being huge in the USA. To put it in perspective - it used to be so hard to enter the USA Album Chart at No.1, that no Act managed it until 1975, when Elton John did it with his 'Captain Fantastic & The Brown Dirt Cowboy' Album. So, in 1964, when The Beatles became big in the USA, it was unheard of for an Album to enter at No.1. Secondly, whilst The Beatles first USA Album, ('Introducing The Beatles'), did not go to No.1 there, it did go to No.2 - for 9 Weeks. At the same time as their 2nd USA Album was at No.1 for 11 Weeks - 'Meet The Beatles'. The UK Media have ignored the fact that The Beatles 2nd USA Album kept their 1st USA Album from No.1, because it spoils their hype about One Direction being the 1st UK Group to have a USA No.1 with their first Album. In the end, The Beatles had 19 USA No.1 Albums, from 1964 to 2000, & 132 Weeks at No.1, in the USA Album Chart. One Direction mean nothing next to that. Nor do they mean a great deal here in the UK, where their Album got no higher than No.2. They are not exactly dominating the UK Charts. Anyhow, One Direction are only the first UK Group to enter at No.1 with their first Album, in the USA. They are not the first UK Group to have a USA No.1 with their first Album. Blind Faith did it in 1969, with their 'Blind Faith' Album. It went in the USA Top 200 at No.111, jumped to No.5, then No.3, then No.2, (2 Weeks), & then climbed to No.1 for 2 Weeks. So, One Direction are not the first UK Group to have a USA No.1 with a debut Album. They are the first UK Group to enter at No.1 with their debut Album. But, they've done it in an 'Era' where it is not so hard to manage. (Leona Lewis, & Susan Boyle, did the same with their 1st USA Albums). |
|
|
|
|
|
#31 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: On thin ice
Posts: 2,566
|
Cut me down with a thousand paper cuts, but i'm not sure One Dimension would agree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#32 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Dark Side of The Moon
Posts: 872
|
Quote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pn_Fch5uCBk&feature=fvst
yeah very rock n roll the beatles early stuff was aimed at screaming teenage girls, nothing rock n roll about also didn't the beatles mime on TV shows much like boybands ![]() The beatles early stuff no matter what music snobs say was pop music aimed at young teenage girls ala beetlemania. Now the term boyband was around back then as so many people keep telling me, but intodays terms they were the 2st boyband and i respect that. The later stuff was more rock and i agree with that tag. I just dont like how beatles fans use there later material to define the bands entire back catalogue http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hftgy...feature=relmfu Yes Eric Clapton, Ginger Baker and Jack Bruce mimed too- for sure they didn't like it, but IMO they had to. In the 60s TV studios weren't ideal for sound recording. Obviously there was a lot of technical issues, bands weren't able to replicate the sound of the original recordings (like the electronic phasing effect and other innovative stuff made in the recording studio). Sometimes there were complaints of poor sounding live acts on TV. Another reason was the TV Sudios didn't want to spend money, time and effort to accommodate band's equipment, mic them up properly to provide a decent sound. But if they did it then the band had to do some necessary sound-checking (again lost of time)- and even after all this effort sill something could go wrong. In the 60s a lot of the music shows couldn't afford it actually, and on the shows like Ready Steady Go! or Top of The Pops on every show there was featured a lot of performers - not one band. It was so much safer for TV shows producers to make bands mime. |
|
|
|
|
|
#33 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: elm street
Posts: 1,002
|
Quote:
All that One Direction have done is to enter the USA Album
Chart at No.1, with their first Album. Because The Beatles did not do that, (with their 1st Album), 'The Sun', etc. started a silly hype campaign about them being huge in the USA. To put it in perspective - it used to be so hard to enter the USA Album Chart at No.1, that no Act managed it until 1975, when Elton John did it with his 'Captain Fantastic & The Brown Dirt Cowboy' Album. So, in 1964, when The Beatles became big in the USA, it was unheard of for an Album to enter at No.1. Secondly, whilst The Beatles first USA Album, ('Introducing The Beatles'), did not go to No.1 there, it did go to No.2 - for 9 Weeks. At the same time as their 2nd USA Album was at No.1 for 11 Weeks - 'Meet The Beatles'. The UK Media have ignored the fact that The Beatles 2nd USA Album kept their 1st USA Album from No.1, because it spoils their hype about One Direction being the 1st UK Group to have a USA No.1 with their first Album. In the end, The Beatles had 19 USA No.1 Albums, from 1964 to 2000, & 132 Weeks at No.1, in the USA Album Chart. One Direction mean nothing next to that. Nor do they mean a great deal here in the UK, where their Album got no higher than No.2. They are not exactly dominating the UK Charts. Anyhow, One Direction are only the first UK Group to enter at No.1 with their first Album, in the USA. They are not the first UK Group to have a USA No.1 with their first Album. Blind Faith did it in 1969, with their 'Blind Faith' Album. It went in the USA Top 200 at No.111, jumped to No.5, then No.3, then No.2, (2 Weeks), & then climbed to No.1 for 2 Weeks. So, One Direction are not the first UK Group to have a USA No.1 with a debut Album. They are the first UK Group to enter at No.1 with their debut Album. But, they've done it in an 'Era' where it is not so hard to manage. (Leona Lewis, & Susan Boyle, did the same with their 1st USA Albums). |
|
|
|
|
|
#34 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,740
|
Quote:
The term boyband wasn't used until long after the Beatles.
They were a rock n roll band or 'beat combo' |
|
|
|
|
|
#35 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,740
|
Quote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pn_Fch5uCBk&feature=fvst
yeah very rock n roll the beatles early stuff was aimed at screaming teenage girls, nothing rock n roll about also didn't the beatles mime on TV shows much like boybands ![]() The beatles early stuff no matter what music snobs say was pop music aimed at young teenage girls ala beetlemania. Now the term boyband was around back then as so many people keep telling me, but intodays terms they were the 2st boyband and i respect that. The later stuff was more rock and i agree with that tag. I just dont like how beatles fans use there later material to define the bands entire back catalogue the early album material though was quite varied, from rock n roll style material, through to 'deeper' love songs. and they evolved away from the 'proto boyband' style long before they took drugs. |
|
|
|
|
|
#36 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,699
|
Never heard of them. So question answered.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#37 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: elm street
Posts: 1,002
|
Quote:
Never heard of them. So question answered.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#38 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,230
|
We'll see how long One Dimension are around for and how long they are remembered... They will be lucky to make it past 5 years, I'd say that's how long The Backstreet Boys lasted. Looks can only get you so far as that changes... But talent stays with you forever, which is exactly why The Beatles lasted such a long time and all managed to make music even on their own.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#39 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 5,071
|
Quote:
We'll see how long One Dimension are around for and how long they are remembered... They will be lucky to make it past 5 years, I'd say that's how long The Backstreet Boys lasted. Looks can only get you so far as that changes... But talent stays with you forever, which is exactly why The Beatles lasted such a long time and all managed to make music even on their own.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#40 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,876
|
Quote:
What they are REALLY saying is that 1D have done something that NO British group has ever done, INCLUDING the biggest band ever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#41 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,230
|
Quote:
BSB are still going strong, and are very talented.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#42 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 5,071
|
Quote:
They may still be touring... but they are not on the scale that they were during the 90s and the media don't care about them anymore. They seem to be doing minor arenas and the reason no one cares for them anymore is because they are around 35-40 years old.... looks can only keep you in the spotlight for so long. They had about 5 years and it all died down... just like every other talentless boyband.
Still not bad, 40million sales from 1 albulm for a talentless band..my god. |
|
|
|
|
|
#43 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,876
|
Quote:
calling BSB talentless proves what a music snob you are. Reason there not as big is due to them sacking there manager who helped N'sync too.
Quote:
Still not bad, 40million sales from 1 albulm for a talentless band..my god.
Quantity != quality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#44 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,230
|
Quote:
calling BSB talentless proves what a music snob you are. Reason there not as big is due to them sacking there manager who helped N'sync too.
Still not bad, 40million sales from 1 albulm for a talentless band..my god. So they were not as big because they are no longer with that manager? Think that tells us everything we need to know. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 21:05.



