• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • General Discussion Forums
  • General Discussion
Are the Beatles still the biggest band in music history
<<
<
6 of 8
>>
>
bri160356
27-12-2016
Originally Posted by Pitman:
“Jack Daniels and Charlie deserve a mention ”

‘The Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band’ were a huge influence on the Beatles and many of the 60’s and early 70’s super-groups;

…their seminal 2nd album ‘The Doughnut in Granny's Greenhouse ’ was, and remains, a classic.
SULLA
27-12-2016
Originally Posted by anne_666:
“The Hollies never appealed to me.
”

Hey, Carrie Anne
Pitman
27-12-2016
Originally Posted by bri160356:
“‘The Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band’ were a huge influence on the Beatles and many of the 60’s and early 70’s super-groups;

…their seminal 2nd album ‘The Doughnut in Granny's Greenhouse ’ was, and remains, a classic.”

Ed Sheeran has said it's the biggest influence on his life,after his record company instructed him to
JERRY HIPKISS
27-12-2016
Originally Posted by bri160356:
“‘The Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band’ were a huge influence on the Beatles and many of the 60’s and early 70’s super-groups;

…their seminal 2nd album ‘The Doughnut in Granny's Greenhouse ’ was, and remains, a classic.”

Except that by the time that came out, the Beatles had already reached the summit. Not sure I'd rate "Doughnut" as a classic, although the vinyl LP remains in my collection, and as any fule kno, McCartney produced the Bonzo's "Urban Spaceman"...
swingaleg
27-12-2016
I used to have a 'Bonzo' LP ............Gorilla

bri160356
27-12-2016
Originally Posted by JERRY HIPKISS:
“Except that by the time that came out, the Beatles had already reached the summit. Not sure I'd rate "Doughnut" as a classic, although the vinyl LP remains in my collection, and as any fule kno, McCartney produced the Bonzo's "Urban Spaceman"...”



...heretic !
JERRY HIPKISS
27-12-2016
Originally Posted by bri160356:
“

...heretic ! ”

Ah, but can blue men sing the whites?
anne_666
27-12-2016
Originally Posted by SULLA:
“Hey, Carrie Anne”

Nope, even if it was my real name
bri160356
27-12-2016
Originally Posted by JERRY HIPKISS:
“Ah, but can blue men sing the whites? ”

...yes, apparently.
muggins14
27-12-2016
Originally Posted by bri160356:
“...yes, apparently.”

Hahaha!
Union Jock
27-12-2016
Originally Posted by Brian The Dog:
“ABBA

Just leaving that there.”

ABBA were not a band nor pop group..
Grafenwalder
27-12-2016
Originally Posted by bri160356:
“Unlike the Beatles, Rolling Stones, Elton John et al, The Dave Clark 5 (and Dave Clark, specifically) owned all rights to their music;…that’s why the Dave Clark 5 had their own airliner (called the DC5!) that they’d tour the world in,…long before Elvis, Led Zeppelin, ELP etc had their own planes.”

Glad you added the bracketed as that's important. There is an interesting documentary, "The Dave Clark Five and Beyond: Glad All Over". It was produced and directed by Clark which speaks volumes. After watching it i drew the conclusion that Clark is first and foremost a businessman, being a drummer in a pop group came second. Whilst Clark became a very wealthy man, the other members of the DC5 pretty much disappeared into oblivion though three of them are dead. They didn't make much money, Clark made a fortune.

Article about the documentary and Clarks life post DC5 here, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/m...n-Beatles.html
skinj
27-12-2016
As an alternative view I wonder if this is one way to look at it.
Compared to the heyday of the Beetles do people have more choice & access to artists. Are there more artists for them to choose from?
I think the answer to both the above is an un-questionable yes, which means the dilution of fanbase for one particular artist/band /group is potentially much higher now than it was back then. Also you have to remember there are new generations of people discovering the old music and enjoying too.
I think that comparing bands/artists then to bands/artists now is impossible to do because of all these factors. It's like people that compare today's footballers with footballers from the 1960's and say that they are much better forgetting the fact that in the 1960's the pitches were awful, the health of the players was significantly lower as drink, drugs & cigarettes were all the norm, the footballs were heavier and the training techniques were primitive compared to now. If you could transport the old players in time to now they would be destroyed by today's teams. If you could bring them here as young children, take them through the same development phases they get now and give them the same healthcare they would probably compete quite happily against today's teams.
WhatJoeThinks
27-12-2016
They were called The Beatles, not the Beetles.
Moany Liza
27-12-2016
Originally Posted by owen10:
“I dont think there will be anyone in the next fifty years that will be bigger than them. Not even Led Zeppelin, The Rolling Stones or the Beach Boys. They are still the biggest band in the world even though they are not together anymore”

No.

The Rolling Stones are the biggest and greatest band in history.

That is all.
skinj
27-12-2016
Originally Posted by WhatJoeThinks:
“They were called The Beatles, not the Beetles.”

Thanks for that. Any opinion on the input I had or just a spell checker?
WhatJoeThinks
27-12-2016
Originally Posted by skinj:
“Thanks for that. Any opinion on the input I had or just a spell checker?”

Sorry, the paragraph spacing wasn't for me either, so I didn't read it.

[Edit] ...Okay, having read it in full now I see your point about dilution. I also think that the opposite is also true as there are more potential consumers now. It would only take some flash-in-the-pan group to gain success in one of the bigger markets like India or China and The Beatle's sales figures could be dwarfed virtually overnight.
SULLA
28-12-2016
Originally Posted by anne_666:
“Nope, even if it was my real name ”

Hey Carrie anne-666
bri160356
28-12-2016
Originally Posted by Grafenwalder:
“Glad you added the bracketed as that's important. There is an interesting documentary, "The Dave Clark Five and Beyond: Glad All Over". It was produced and directed by Clark which speaks volumes. After watching it i drew the conclusion that Clark is first and foremost a businessman, being a drummer in a pop group came second. Whilst Clark became a very wealthy man, the other members of the DC5 pretty much disappeared into oblivion though three of them are dead. They didn't make much money, Clark made a fortune.

Article about the documentary and Clarks life post DC5 here, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/m...n-Beatles.html”

That’s very true; Clark is/was undoubtedly a businessman first, musician second.

He was probably the first to realize that many of the early super-groups and solo artists were doing all the work for little financial gain. Most (if not all) of them were being robbed blind by unscrupulous ‘management’ companies.

Clark however, owned his own song writing rights, publishing rights and he also produced the records. That’s the three areas were most of the money from record sales emanates.

He was also the DC5 ‘manager’;… I think it’s safe to say he was a bit of a control freak!

Although the Beatles weren't getting much royalty money they were given access to a studio 24 hours a day for as long as they wanted,… to ‘experiment’ and diversify to their hearts content.

That probably explains why the DC5 never really progressed ‘musically’;…they had to get in and out of the studio as quickly as possible because they were ‘independent’.

How many studio hours did it take Pink Floyd to produce ‘Dark Side of the Moon’ ? (amusingly, its original working title was ‘Dark Side of the Moon: A Piece for Assorted Lunatics.’)

However, DC5 didn’t progress but Clarks personal fortune did,…enormously.

A lifelong bachelor with no children and no known romantic liaisons Clark lives alone in his £15M west London house.

Clark may be out of the public eye, but insists he is not reclusive;…he has many close friends including Elton John and Ian McKellen.
mushymanrob
28-12-2016
Originally Posted by Deep Purple:
“
The DC5 cannot be compared to the likes of The Beatles, The Stones and Led Zeppelin. They were an out and out pop group.”

... nor could they be compared to the kinks, small faces, yardbirds, animals... id put the dc5 in the same category as the tremelos, dave dee etc, hermans hermits. they created decent pop songs but unlike the others listed didnt make social comments through music which helped change society. so yep, the dc5 were lightweights.

Originally Posted by skinj:
“As an alternative view I wonder if this is one way to look at it.
Compared to the heyday of the Beetles do people have more choice & access to artists. Are there more artists for them to choose from?”

not so..... there was no compulsion back then to like pop music, not liking it was a very popular option. people liked what they liked because they liked it and not as a choice of 'the best on offer'.
mushymanrob
28-12-2016
Originally Posted by bri160356:
“That’s very true; Clark is/was undoubtedly a businessman first, musician second.

He was probably the first to realize that many of the early super-groups and solo artists were doing all the work for little financial gain. Most (if not all) of them were being robbed blind by unscrupulous ‘management’ companies.

Clark however, owned his own song writing rights, publishing rights and he also produced the records. That’s the three areas were most of the money from record sales emanates.

He was also the DC5 ‘manager’;… I think it’s safe to say he was a bit of a control freak!

Although the Beatles weren't getting much royalty money they were given access to a studio 24 hours a day for as long as they wanted,… to ‘experiment’ and diversify to their hearts content.

That probably explains why the DC5 never really progressed ‘musically’;…they had to get in and out of the studio as quickly as possible because they were ‘independent’.

How many studio hours did it take Pink Floyd to produce ‘Dark Side of the Moon’ ? (amusingly, its original working title was ‘Dark Side of the Moon: A Piece for Assorted Lunatics.’)

However, DC5 didn’t progress but Clarks personal fortune did,…enormously.

A lifelong bachelor with no children and no known romantic liaisons Clark lives alone in his £15M west London house.

Clark may be out of the public eye, but insists he is not reclusive;…he has many close friends including Elton John and Ian McKellen.”

true... and he was there with freddie mercury at the end...
barbeler
28-12-2016
Originally Posted by bri160356:
“‘The Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band’ were a huge influence on the Beatles and many of the 60’s and early 70’s super-groups;

…their seminal 2nd album ‘The Doughnut in Granny's Greenhouse ’ was, and remains, a classic.”

Oh no they weren't. Don't be silly. I'm sure they found them amusing though.
bri160356
28-12-2016
Originally Posted by Moany Liza:
“No.

The Rolling Stones are the biggest and greatest band in history.

That is all. ”

In terms of longevity, record sales and enduring popularity (still touring/performing !) I reckon you’ve got a point.

The 60’s Beatles are just a dim and distant memory for many people.
Deep Purple
28-12-2016
Originally Posted by bri160356:
“In terms of longevity, record sales and enduring popularity (still touring/performing !) I reckon you’ve got a point.

The 60’s Beatles are just a dim and distant memory for many people.”

The Beatles were still at their peak when they split, and that leaves a lasting legacy in support of everything they achieved.

I love The Stones, but they are not regarded as highly by many as they were back in the 60s, much like Paul isn't.
Glyn W
28-12-2016
Regardless of the lyrical/musical qualities of their songs, which can be arguable; or their sales, which is less so, The Beatles have had an industry-wide influence that just about every recording artist since still uses.

When The Beatles first started recording, bands were basically wheeled into a studio, sang their songs onto tape and booted out again - in effect recording a 'live' performance. On the back of the massive sales they generated, The Beatles were granted almost unlimited studio access unheard of previously - even more so after they stopped making live appearances - and they were free to experiment and show what could be achieved using the full potential of recording technology. They were the band that turned the recording studio itself into a musical instrument, and the techniques they pioneered have been used by just about every recording artiste since, and recording companies saw the light and gave that studio freedom in ordr to get the better results they expected. THAT'S their real legacy.
<<
<
6 of 8
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map