Rock Historian Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 Agreed. There's a huge difference between early Beatles and the "boy bands" of the 1990s. Jahfin, I edited my post if you wanna read it. Although the music may be slightly different (Beatles had much more depth and actually played instrumentsl), the whole image and intentions where the same. At least that's how I see it (early Beatles). I also agree with their definition here- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_band Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jahfin Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 If the early Beatles were a "boy band" then so were the early versions of the Stones, the Who, the Kinks, etc. http://youtu.be/8ov3JsRLlog http://youtu.be/vYXvVxJpssw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Historian Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 I can agree to a certain extent with that, but how many videos do you see of The Beatles with hundreds of girls flocking them, that proably knew nothing about the music. And frankly, they didn't care. It was all about seeing them (just as the John Bonham video above describes) The Beach Boys had that going for them too, if you wanna include them. But the Beatles were the biggest (and still are ) of that kind of success based on the whole image of what they represented back then. It's there to see, no gettin around it- all the old footage proves that. Did you read the link? I think that would classify them as a "boy band" too, even if their musical ability vs. todays bunch is no contest. I'm going off of the whole package. But hey, I gotta say one thing-even if you disagree-it's not an argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jahfin Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 If the Beatles were a "boy band" then so are the Avett Brothers. And yes, I read the Wiki entry. I vehemently disagree with the assertion that the Beatles were a "boy band". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Historian Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 If the Beatles were a "boy band" then so are the Avett Brothers. And yes, I read the Wiki entry. I vehemently disagree with the assertion that the Beatles were a "boy band". I know some people (maybe even yourself) don't like to include them in that catagory , because it might sound degrading to them, but it is what it is- they did however, evolve into something much more dence in the latter half Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jahfin Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 I don't include them in that category because they don't fit in it, not by any stretch of the imagination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Historian Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 I don't include them in that category because they don't fit in it, not by any stretch of the imagination. We can agree to disagree then. The way I see it (and all the old videos prove it) they were what I think they were (and I'm not the only one that believes that). I'm sure there are many that feel the way you do as well. Im not saying Wiki, is always correct ,or the law- but they make a valid point here and it also shows that my views on what The Beatles represented back then were not only the thoughts of mine, but others as well. Your just on the other side of the fence. Thanks for the debate-it's been fun (not being sarcastic) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazedcat Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 Nope, I don't think so. Never said they were the first to be teeny idols, but the masses of girls flocking to see them, that created mass hysteria was never seen on that level before with a full band. They definitly had the "boy band" image in the early days, still seen today. Like I said, you've drunk so much of that particular Kool Aide you've officially drowned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Historian Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 Like I said, you've drunk so much of that particular Kool Aide you've officially drowned. Your obnoxious comments are not worth an answer,you bring NOTHING to the table. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenguitar Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 Later Beatles, of course, I mean I have to recognise that no other band has ever released so many good albums(and influential at the same time). You just have to listen to Revolver,Sgt Pepper,The White Album,Abbey Road(for me the best album of all time), Let it Be, and also the Blue Album(1967-1970), to realise that these guys were truely exceptional. They influenced a lot of artists I listen to, such as Elton John( I like the early days between 1970 and 1978),Supertramp(very underrated band), and of course Queen, which would never have existed without the Beatles.(no Beatles= no Bohemian Rhapsody, Don't stop me Now etc) The following song was written by Freddie Mercury as a tribute to John Lennon.He owed him a lot as far as his musical style was concerned: The Beatles are not responsible for the deterioration of pop music in the 80's, when pop suddenly became independent from Rock music and started to break free from progressive rock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazedcat Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 Your obnoxious comments are not worth an answer,you bring NOTHING to the table. You're not bringing anything to this argument either other than your own personal opinion..........which is wrong. I'll give you this much though, you actually think you're right. So all of the modern rock music movement, by your definition, was build on boy bands.......Stones, Beatles, Kinks, Who, Animals, Yardbirds, and many others, who ALL played to screaming teenies and who ALL wore jackets and ties or other styles of matching clothing. Great, let's go with that then. I need to mix more kool aide, watermelon or cherry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 Later Beatles for me. As far as "Boy Band" goes, take away the fans' reaction to them and there is no way they fall into that category. It was the start of their musical progression from a simplistic musical style to the ground breaking musical writing and recording process they evolved into - that's all. Never have seen NSync, Backstreet Boys, New Kids On The Block or any other "Boy Band" type do any evolving in their musical expressions. I don't even know if they wrote their own songs. My opinion, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Historian Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 Dence? Mock Historian, perhaps? Solid, tightly packed.....In other words-they were a more comapct unit as they evolved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Historian Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 You're not bringing anything to this argument either other than your own personal opinion..........which is wrong. I'll give you this much though, you actually think you're right. So all of the modern rock music movement, by your definition, was build on boy bands.......Stones, Beatles, Kinks, Who, Animals, Yardbirds, and many others, who ALL played to screaming teenies and who ALL wore jackets and ties or other styles of matching clothing. Great, let's go with that then. I need to mix more kool aide, watermelon or cherry? I guess WIKI and the others who identify them in the early years as such are all wrong then. Because you say so. Wiki is not the law, buy they are creditable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Historian Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 http://musiqology.co...jonas-brothers/ This is the exact message is was getting across. For those who care to read it. (check it out - not a long read) It explains my point. The movement, the association, etc.(not the level of musicianship). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Historian Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 I applaud you on your ability to stick to your guns, but you couldn't be more wrong. Brian Epstein did a job on cleaning up the Beatles' image upon returning to England from Hamburg. But I really wouldn't call the early Beatles of Hamburg a "boy band", playing in seedy bars and all. I think you are confusing maybe the fact that they (John especially) dabbled a bit in the 'Teddy Boy' subculture/style before becoming a moptop. But even if they were "Teds" that did not make them a "boy band". Time to change your name to something else if you can't get this one right Rock Historian. http://musiqology.co...jonas-brothers/ Read this - (I share the same view) it's cut and dry. You should understand it-I hope. And if you also decide to read up higher on the post, you will see that this is strictly my view (shared by many others who have legitimate links that you can browse at your convienience on the internet) There are just as many that believe they are not ( as you). I never once said that someone was wrong for having your particular image of them (in the beginning stages of their career) - However, my opinon is not alone either - and this link explains it perfectly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 My favorites are Rubber Soul onward. But I do own and listen to the early records occasionally too, just not as often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazedcat Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 John Lennon was murdered 31 years ago yesterday. http://www.rollingst...erview-20101207 One cannot blame the Beatles for the Backstreet Boys or even the Osmond Brothers for that matter. That would be like blaming Led Zeppelin for Kingdom Come. Wiki and whatever other blog you care to link to are trying to simplify a cultural movement by linking it to simple musical marketing. Again, epic fail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Historian Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 John Lennon was murdered 31 years ago yesterday. http://www.rollingst...erview-20101207 Sad day for music indeed (when that happened)... care to engage in this little bit of info http://musiqology.co...jonas-brothers/ Planet Kool-Aid? My views are not alone- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazedcat Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 It's still sad thinking back on such a tragedy. Like I said in my last post edit, they're trying to simplify to the point of absurdity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Historian Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 It's still sad thinking back on such a tragedy. Like I said in my last post edit, they're trying to simplify to the point of absurdity. So there you go, my views and opinions are not alone- and very similar to what I've been conveying in my post. It's absurd to you, because you don't agree. I never once said that The Beatles lacked musical skills (as these other bands do) but the whole movement, image, etc.etc.etc resulted in Beatlemania-which people still associate with today and the similar craze and marketing that was used back then to appeal to an audience. Read the link anytime you please- it's a legitimate view and a good explanation -that I happen to agree with- so no one "fails" padner-it's a matter of what side of the fence your on-and guess what? -there is No wrong side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Historian Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 Ah...you mean dense. But I still don't have a clue what you're rattling on about. Regarding your 'boy band' argument, you're wrong. WRONG. The Beatles were not manufactured. Did a pervy svengali introduce John & Paul to each other? No. Did they hire a hit machine to write their songs? No. Does the fact that they wrote a few love songs make them a boy band? No. Does the fact that their concerts were drowned out by screaming girlies make them a boy band? No. The Stones got the same kind of reaction in the early days - ever heard 'Got Live If You Want It'? And that was despite their having written some seriously misogynistic songs by then - Stupid Girl, Play With Fire etc. They were hardly aiming for the screaming girlie market with those, were they? But they still got it. What you fail to appreciate is the cultural context of the times. Tame as they might seem to you now, The Beatles, the Stones and certain other bands represented a seismic shift in the musical paradigm, generating a wildness with their records and shows that had not been seen before, and unleashing a hitherto repressed tidal wave of adolescent female sexuality that nobody could have predicted. Compare that to the cynical, calculated bullshit that passes for girlie music these days, and you have your answer. I don't wish to sound unkind, but for someone with such a pompous, grandiose nom de net, you sure have a lot to learn. I guess you didn't read the link that I've posted several times on here...explaining my reasons for my image/view of them. And no matter how many times you wanna write-my opinion of them is what it is-And it's not indifferent from the sources I've mentioned. So for one of you-there is one of me, and life goes on. As for your remarks and constant name calling- when you are ready to have a "discussion" and talk man to man, instead of how you go about things-to spark an argument, lemme know. I don't claim to be the word or law of anything, and yes I do have alot to learn...never said I know it all-but I stand by my word, and defend my point with credible sources whenever possible, even if it's an opinion. I also am not afraid to agree with someone when I think I share the same view, whcih you don't do much of either. Speaking of alot to learn, YOU need to learn social skills and how to deal with people on a bigger level, So take your own advice...a mirror is not too far. One of the things I need to learn is not to deal with you- because your comments are always negative and sometimes purposely insulting (which I do not appreciate) -with nothing more to back it than another insult. Are you familiar with the song , "Your time is gonna come?"... Keep it up and you'll be online under another name. The admin. monitors this site. So I suggest you cool it, before "Big Brother" steps in and does a sweep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Historian Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 ^^^ Yep. You should be a lawyer, because you won this one hands down. I had mentioned how Epstein attempted to clean up their image post Hamburg as a marketing tool, but that nothing to do with the music they were making. The Beatles were not manufactured in any way. What is it about certain historians who are not capable of viewing history in any meaningful context? Led Tiki, I said nothing to the effect of The Beatles unability to play an instrument. Excellent musicians. You also must have disregarded the link I posted several times-that clealy states how some associate Beatlemania and the whole package to the maunufactured bands of today. It's there for you anytime you are wiling to read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Historian Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 What does that mean? I don't understand why you make controversial topics and/or posts and then don't expect to be challenged on your opinions? You sort of got personal with me in another thread, but I can't figure out why that is necessary? If all you prefer to do is make statements that will go unchallenged, then why even ask the questions you do? Sure, I can answer that for you. First off, I did apologize to you before making that statement ahead of time, incase you did take it personal ( because you are passionate about your feelings as many of us are) so that is why I felt it right to say that-(and not many people on here would do that) Other members on the other hand make remarks with the intention of sparking a battle...constantly. And to answer to the challenge question. I'm never afraid of that, and I welcome anyone who disagrees, but it can be done in an adult manor. Maybe you haven't been here long-but if the comments get out of hand and continue over and over-whch they do-the Admin. will do a clean-up. I welcome any debate, discussion, opinion or whatever, but when it reaches argument status, it becomes nothing more than that. The thread that was blocked (the one you were rambling on) is a good example of that. It's not worth getting banned from here, over an argument. So somebody has to be the bigger man, right? There's a difference between challenging a topic /voicing an opinion vs. an all out argument-over music of all things.....hope this explains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Historian Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 I did read the link and it's ridiculous. The guy who plays off like some scholar of music and culture is just some guy who likes to pontificate on some blog he created for his own vanity. There IS NO COMPARISON to the Beatles and the boy bands you speak of, NONE. If you just look at the vast appeal the Beatles had among people other than the screaming teenie boppers you can see where the difference is. The difference was in the music that they made. And just because the record label (a for profit enterprise) may have been very happy to capitalize on teenie boppers wanting to spend their money; it still did not overshaddow the Beatles' oganic appeal across many aspects of the culture. Boy bands have a limited appeal to mostly teenage girls, their mothers who take them to the concerts, and gay men or boys (and I'm not being derogatory with that). Wether everyone liked the pop music genre that the Beatles were a part of early on. Nobody can dispute their obvious talent. Just as Elvis before them, their talent was what shines through all of the "crap" that the media or the record label may have wanted to put on them. Or this new crap that some self styled "musicology professor" want to make up out of thin air. Once again, I said nothing of their lack of talent. You keep mentioning the musical ability. It was everything else that went along with them in the early days that have some people associating them with the Boy Bands of today. And as far as the challenge thing, I've tackled those negative guys on more than one occasion. Unfortunatly-there are alot of em'. But hey, if you don't agree with my vision of The Beatles, I'm glad for ya. No quarrels about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.