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.

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

When One Direction write their own songs and release anything akin to Revolver - i'm sure there'll be a retraction.

The only thing One Direction can be compared to is the Monkees

What?
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.

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).

Cut me down with a thousand paper cuts, but i'm not sure One Dimension would agree.

Yes they mimed... like many other bands in the 60's. Not only The Beatles but the Kinks, The Rolling Stones, Small Faces, The Easybeats, The Animals, The Who, The Yardbirds... even bands like Cream
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.

Great post. Reminded me that my Beatles knowledge used to be second to none up until around ten years.

..or 'pop group' .... thats what we called all guitar based bands.

no...the singles were aimed at a young market, and girls took that up in particular.

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.

Never heard of them. So question answered.

They were a four-piece from Liverpool in the sixties.

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.

BSB are still going strong, and are very talented.

Yay! Let's hear it for quantity over quality! Let's hear it for banality and mediocrity! That whirring noise you hear is Bill Hicks spinning in his grave.

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.

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.

Ah, the snob accusation gambit. The DS equivalent of Godwin's Law.


Quantity != quality.

40 million sales was a bunch of girls buying the music based on their image... now, if "good looking" counts as talent then i'll give you that.

So they were not as big because they are no longer with that manager? Think that tells us everything we need to know.