# Beatles - Not Even Close To The Best Group Ever. **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [August 19, 2016, 9:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/beatles-not-even-close-to-the-best-group-ever/763280 "2016-08-19T09:43:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![scabpicker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/scabpicker/32/8268_2.png) [@scabpicker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scabpicker)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2016, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/beatles-not-even-close-to-the-best-group-ever/763280/221 "2016-08-23T16:25:34Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > I repeat what I said earlier. If the Beatles were a boy band then so was everybody else. Why say it except to denigrate them? It’s a term of approbation for good reason. Your history is as wrong as Zeke’s and that’s why you’re getting such enormous pushback. Perhaps that’s why I have the disconnect. I see it as a business decision, one that’s not for everyone, but every band is a type of business. There are others who didn’t take that tack, and of course met with less commercial success. But some got by, put out what they wanted, and went on with life. Others took that tack, didn’t have the backing and patience The Beatles had, and didn’t put out as good of a product directed at teenyboppers. The Beatles took that tack, and were able to go beyond it. > [@Nonsuch](#): > > I think that to describe the Beatles as a boy band or a teenybopper act is ahistorical projection, but I can let that go. > > What I’m arguing with is the idea that they consciously changed their act to appeal to teenagers. John Lennon liked to claim Brian Epstein made them safe and boring, but that was hindsight, and mostly spurred by jealousy that a prissy college boy like Mick Jagger could be crowned the reigning badass of the British Invasion over himself. The other Beatles never made an issue of it; if putting on suits and bowing after every number got them a bigger fee, they were all for it. Well, hindsight is often claimed to be 20/20. John may have claimed a lot of things, but his dissatisfaction with the lack of “Rock N’ Roll” in The Beatles’ music seemed to never stop. It may not have been a problem for the other members, but that doesn’t invalidate the idea that Epstein cleaned them up for mass consumption. Bigger fee because of more record sales to teenagers? I’d have a hard time arguing against that, it’d depend on what you wanted me to do. > [@Nonsuch](#): > > Your position seems to me to be that the Beatles could have stayed true to themselves and remained a grubby, leather-wearing bar band, but instead chose to go where the money was and so reinvented themselves as a teenybopper act. My position is that the Beatles were always ambitious even when they were nobodies playing birthday parties for free, and that finding success as a rock and roll act at the time meant selling records to teenagers; there was no other metric and no other avenue open to them. They weren’t a country group or a black R&B act; it was either the pop charts, or pack it in and get real jobs. My position is that they were ambitious, and they were willing to change. Real jobs or toiling in obscurity wasn’t a price they were willing to pay, so they changed. Thank you both for well-reasoned, polite responses. ---
**Author:** ![scabpicker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/scabpicker/32/8268_2.png) [@scabpicker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scabpicker)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2016, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/beatles-not-even-close-to-the-best-group-ever/763280/222 "2016-08-23T17:04:18Z")
Missed the edit window (by a very long time): Yeah, **Exapno** I don’t see why it has such a negative connotation. Even 13 year old girls and boys need to be communicated to on a level they understand. It’s not directed at me, so there’s a very good reason that I’m not always enamored of it. I can’t hold successful record sales against them, those are hard to come by even when you’re chasing the largest market. When a particular song works for someone like me as well, it’s a happy accident. I was weird about music long before I was weird about sex.\* In the case of “authenticating space”, I’d say that a band or performer has actually started on a “genius work” when they create a new “authenticating space” that is unique to the work. The Beatles at least deserve credit for fleshing out some of those newer spaces with their later albums, and they were just expanding in the “boy band” genre for a few albums. Then, they took off for stranger pastures. Sometimes it appeals to me, sometimes not. \*Ok, I’m weird within normal parameters. Consenting adults, everybody’s human, it’s about the sex rather than the other things we do while having sex, etc. Don’t get yourselves all worked up. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2016, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/beatles-not-even-close-to-the-best-group-ever/763280/223 "2016-08-23T17:11:57Z")
> [@scabpicker](#): > > Perhaps that’s why I have the disconnect. I see it as a business decision, one that’s not for everyone, but every band is a type of business. There are others who didn’t take that tack, and of course met with less commercial success. But some got by, put out what they wanted, and went on with life. Others took that tack, didn’t have the backing and patience The Beatles had, and didn’t put out as good of a product directed at teenyboppers. The Beatles took that tack, and were able to go beyond it. I still find your argument to be oversimplistic. It boils down to saying nothing beyond that the Beatles were a boy band because they wanted to be popular and the only way to be popular in music is to become a boy band. ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2016, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/beatles-not-even-close-to-the-best-group-ever/763280/224 "2016-08-23T17:35:27Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > I still find your argument to be oversimplistic. It boils down to saying nothing beyond that the Beatles were a boy band because they wanted to be popular and the only way to be popular in music is to become a boy band. The argument also seems to be that there were other bands who didn’t do this, a whole scene or world of them, and they were as good but never sold out. Therefore those bands are as good or greater than the fabs. But none of them is ever named. Surf bands were making “adult” music at the time apparently, expressing themselves through their song titles. (There being no lyrics to support this idea.) Nothing says grownup to me like a surf tune. And “Rockabilly” was an “adult” sophisticated form of music that the Beatles eschewed to make their music for teenage girls, who never listened to rockabilly apparently. It doesn’t matter that they actually played rockabilly songs in their sets. I guess rock and roll was “adult” music apparently, to the poster, even though it was aimed at teenagers, _of all genders_, if you look back at the facts. Which says that he is looking through beatles created glasses backwards and trying to arrange the items to ignore the beatles effect on the whole scene which he is the helpless child of. Tough case but there it is. ---
**Author:** ![scabpicker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/scabpicker/32/8268_2.png) [@scabpicker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scabpicker)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2016, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/beatles-not-even-close-to-the-best-group-ever/763280/225 "2016-08-23T17:41:53Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > I still find your argument to be oversimplistic. It boils down to saying nothing beyond that the Beatles were a boy band because they wanted to be popular and the only way to be popular in music is to become a boy band. Well, it might be cyclic, but I wasn’t the one who invented the system they were working in. If you want large record sales, one kind of necessitates the other. ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2016, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/beatles-not-even-close-to-the-best-group-ever/763280/226 "2016-08-23T18:04:28Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > I still find your argument to be oversimplistic. It boils down to saying nothing beyond that the Beatles were a boy band because they wanted to be popular and the only way to be popular in music is to become a boy band. Most boy bands don’t even play instruments. Any instruments. They dance & sing & look cute. Anyone calling the Beatles a boy band knows no musical history. The Beatles began changing their look in Germany, partly thanks to [Astrid Kirchherr](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrid_Kirchherr), Stu Stucliffe’s girlfriend. That’s when they began washing the grease out of their hair. They cleaned up a bit more for Brian Epstein but were always a _real_ band. Yes, they were ambitious. And successful. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2016, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/beatles-not-even-close-to-the-best-group-ever/763280/227 "2016-08-23T18:21:19Z")
> [@scabpicker](#): > > Well, it might be cyclic, but I wasn’t the one who invented the system they were working in. If you want large record sales, one kind of necessitates the other. If you use a word in a way nobody else in the universe uses it you really need to have it make some especially deep, interesting, and important point. Why not save the word boy band for the meaning that everybody else gives it, a meaning that is narrow and precise? What have you gained other than being rightly accused of not knowing what you’re talking about? ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2016, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/beatles-not-even-close-to-the-best-group-ever/763280/228 "2016-08-23T18:42:51Z")
> [@aceplace57](#): > > Yes, I was a bit harsh. Their legacy of studio recordings is very important. > > I’m not sure exactly where I’d rank them among 60’s bands. It would take a lot of thought to rank that many great bands. > > I would rank the Beatles higher after reading this thread. Probably in the top 5. Care to name your top 5 60s bands? ---
**Author:** ![Tibby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tibby/32/17030_2.png) [@Tibby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tibby)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2016, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/beatles-not-even-close-to-the-best-group-ever/763280/229 "2016-08-23T19:00:05Z")
Pulitzer prize winning music critic, Donal Henahan, called Leonard Bernstein \*“one of the most prodigiously talented and successful musicians in American history.” \*Bernstein lists songs of the Beatles among the [great works](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CDz62GNx1A) of the 20th century. …not bad for a teenybopper boy-band. Leonard is a gushing Beatle fanboy [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMMe3iwBV-I), too [poor video quality. Start at 0:45]. Here’s an expanded clip of the [same show](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afU76JJcquI), which includes Bernstein’s introduction and touching approval of a young Janice Ian (at 15:35). What more do you need to validate the cross-cultural/class/age/genre penetration of the Beatles? Approval by the Pope? Don’t hold your breath! …oh, wait, it appears that [Vatican](https://www.beatlesbible.com/2010/02/15/revolver-tops-vatican-best-albums-list/) - [fanboy](https://www.theguardian.com/music/2008/nov/24/beatles-pope-vatican)likes the Beatles, too. ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2016, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/beatles-not-even-close-to-the-best-group-ever/763280/230 "2016-08-23T20:15:15Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > I still find your argument to be oversimplistic. It boils down to saying nothing beyond that the Beatles were a boy band because they wanted to be popular and the only way to be popular in music is to become a boy band. FFS, the most important characteristic of a boy band is not the sex of the performers, or the age of their audience. It’s that they are easily replacable, scripted characters (the cute one, the dangerous one, etc.) who are completely managed by the money man who assembled the package. The performers just learn the lyrics and sing on cue. They are lines on a ledger, along with the songwriters, choreographers, and musicians, most of whom have never seen each other, since they also are hired and fired by the money man. There is not the slightest resemblance between that and the Beatles, at any stage of their career. ---
**Author:** ![Nonsuch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nonsuch/32/2922_2.png) [@Nonsuch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nonsuch)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2016, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/beatles-not-even-close-to-the-best-group-ever/763280/231 "2016-08-23T20:26:55Z")
Well said, **TonySinclair**. ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2016, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/beatles-not-even-close-to-the-best-group-ever/763280/232 "2016-08-23T21:03:26Z")
> [@TonySinclair](#): > > FFS, the most important characteristic of a boy band is not the sex of the performers, or the age of their audience. It’s that they are easily replacable, scripted characters (the cute one, the dangerous one, etc.) who are completely managed by the money man who assembled the package. The performers just learn the lyrics and sing on cue. They are lines on a ledger, along with the songwriters, choreographers, and musicians, most of whom have never seen each other, since they also are hired and fired by the money man. > > There is not the slightest resemblance between that and the Beatles, at any stage of their career. Except when they had to replace Paul that time, cause he died. ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2016, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/beatles-not-even-close-to-the-best-group-ever/763280/233 "2016-08-23T21:05:12Z")
> [@Tibby or Not Tibby](#): > > Pulitzer prize winning music critic, Donal Henahan, called Leonard Bernstein \*“one of the most prodigiously talented and successful musicians in American history.” \*Bernstein lists songs of the Beatles among the [great works](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CDz62GNx1A) of the 20th century. > > …not bad for a teenybopper boy-band. > > Leonard is a gushing Beatle fanboy [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMMe3iwBV-I), too [poor video quality. Start at 0:45]. > > Here’s an expanded clip of the [same show](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afU76JJcquI), which includes Bernstein’s introduction and touching approval of a young Janice Ian (at 15:35). > > What more do you need to validate the cross-cultural/class/age/genre penetration of the Beatles? Approval by the Pope? Don’t hold your breath! > > …oh, wait, it appears that [Vatican](https://www.beatlesbible.com/2010/02/15/revolver-tops-vatican-best-albums-list/) - [fanboy](https://www.theguardian.com/music/2008/nov/24/beatles-pope-vatican)likes the Beatles, too. He also had Brian Wilson doing a proto version of surf’s up. ---
**Author:** ![Nonsuch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nonsuch/32/2922_2.png) [@Nonsuch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nonsuch)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2016, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/beatles-not-even-close-to-the-best-group-ever/763280/234 "2016-08-23T21:23:36Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > Except when they had to replace Paul that time, cause he died. Seriously, it is interesting to think that the pre-fame Beatles actually [fired their handsomest member,](http://lifeofthebeatles.blogspot.com/2010/05/why-did-beatles-fire-pete-best.html) which you’d think was the last thing a commercially minded boy band would do. ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2016, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/beatles-not-even-close-to-the-best-group-ever/763280/235 "2016-08-23T22:22:18Z")
> [@Nonsuch](#): > > Seriously, it is interesting to think that the pre-fame Beatles actually [fired their handsomest member,](http://lifeofthebeatles.blogspot.com/2010/05/why-did-beatles-fire-pete-best.html) which you’d think was the last thing a commercially minded boy band would do. No, don’t you get it? He was dark, moody and mysterious. He was the real rock and roller and they had to eliminate him, or the whole Boy band scheme would have fallen apart. You need to brush up on your conspiracies. ---
**Author:** ![scabpicker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/scabpicker/32/8268_2.png) [@scabpicker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scabpicker)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2016, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/beatles-not-even-close-to-the-best-group-ever/763280/236 "2016-08-24T00:08:30Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > If you use a word in a way nobody else in the universe uses it you really need to have it make some especially deep, interesting, and important point. > > Why not save the word boy band for the meaning that everybody else gives it, a meaning that is narrow and precise? What have you gained other than being rightly accused of not knowing what you’re talking about? Because I’m not the only one using the word this way. I don’t think I’m springing some deep truth on you, it’s just a statement about the economics of the situation. It makes no actual difference in my life if they were a boy band or mariachi group, but from here, they look like the archetypal boy band. I’m not alone in viewing it this way. > [@TonySinclair](#): > > FFS, the most important characteristic of a boy band is not the sex of the performers, or the age of their audience. It’s that they are easily replacable, scripted characters (the cute one, the dangerous one, etc.) who are completely managed by the money man who assembled the package. Man, they’re the genesis of that trope of having the cute one, the funny one, the introspective one, etc. Their early public image was manufactured and packaged by Epstein and Martin. They weren’t The Monkees, but The Monkees were simply being molded into a form that resembled the early Beatles. ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2016, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/beatles-not-even-close-to-the-best-group-ever/763280/237 "2016-08-24T00:24:13Z")
> [@scabpicker](#): > > They weren’t The Monkees, but The Monkees were simply being molded into a form that resembled the early Beatles. I certainly wouldn’t argue about that, as the Monkees _do_ come reasonably close to my conception of a boy band ( their later rebellion and attempt to go “legit” notwithstanding ). But the Monkees ( who I kinda like as well ) were a manufactured band trying to recreate as product what had successfully worked for a _real_ band. The Beatles may have created an appearance/character template to emulate, but there was certainly nothing anywhere near as artificial about them as the Monkees. Did the Beatles have a publicity machine? Yes, but it was largely based on the real people. Peter Tork’s character on the Monkees wasn’t ;). ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2016, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/beatles-not-even-close-to-the-best-group-ever/763280/238 "2016-08-24T00:39:42Z")
> [@scabpicker](#): > > Because I’m not the only one using the word this way. I don’t think I’m springing some deep truth on you, it’s just a statement about the economics of the situation. It makes no actual difference in my life if they were a boy band or mariachi group, but from here, they look like the archetypal boy band. I’m not alone in viewing it this way. > > Man, they’re the genesis of that trope of having the cute one, the funny one, the introspective one, etc. Their early public image was manufactured and packaged by Epstein and Martin. They weren’t The Monkees, but The Monkees were simply being molded into a form that resembled the early Beatles. “Don’t you get it?! All boy bands want to be as successful as the Beatles, therefore the Beatles were a boy band. What could be more clear than that. And people agree with me too. They really do. I’m not alone. I’m really not” ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2016, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/beatles-not-even-close-to-the-best-group-ever/763280/239 "2016-08-24T01:02:56Z")
> [@scabpicker](#): > > Because I’m not the only one using the word this way. And instead on correcting them you decided to adopt it? Poor life decision, dude. ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2016, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/beatles-not-even-close-to-the-best-group-ever/763280/240 "2016-08-24T02:08:28Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > "Don’t you get it?! All boy bands want to be as successful as the Beatles, therefore the Beatles were a boy band. Holy crap, I just realized that the Beatles were also the first “tribute” group. ETA: On second thought, that would be Elvis. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/beatles-not-even-close-to-the-best-group-ever/763280.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/beatles-not-even-close-to-the-best-group-ever/763280.md?page=13)