Well, despite foolish assertions to the contrary earlier. I like The Beatles, too. More than most of that list, in fact. If I may quote my original post on the subject.
Bolding mine.
Yeah, that’s part of the whole fuzzy aspect. I’d say they had “boy band” qualities, girls certainly swooned over the look each had. But their image, while cleaned up from the reality of the situation, was not clean enough to be inoffensive.
Well, as I said earlier. I don’t think of these categories of having hard lines then or now.
Nah, that’s charming, like any other Ringo number, but I think of all the genres the Beatles touched, country was their weakest spot. They did it competently, but always sounded like a British band doing country. The Stones had that better down, when they played country they sounded authentic (though I still don’t know if Jagger’s fake southern accent helped with that or was detrimental, that’s for a native speaker to decide).
I was gonna say… If Slayer is a “boy band” or “hair metal” then those terms have no meaning whatsoever. (I agree about Van Halen and GnR being outside the hair metal mold. Those are just hard rock bands to me.) And, to me, “boy band” specifically refers to a type of vocal pop, a la NSYNC, New Kids on the Block, Menudo, One Direction, etc.
Wow, that statue’s very cool, very, ahem, casual. Great. Does anybody know if the statue had a photographic template? I’ve never seen them dressed like this.
Of course I did, but they look so goddam cool and stylish in this sculpture, it’s almost larger than life. Like they were, and that’s why it’s a great monument.
I love the picture, so expressive, a few guys with the world at their feet, and infinity to go. Doesn’t look too much like a boy band though. It must’ve been suppressed by the machine at the time.
The Beatles are easily one of the most successful and influential bands of the 20th century. While the op is entitled to an opinion of their music there is no argument regarding the success and influence they held. It’s well documented and easily sourced on the internet.
I didn’t start listening to the Beatles until after my teen years which were filled with bands like Deep Purple, Led Zeppelin, and Jimi Hendrix. I was certainly aware of the
Beatles but did not buy their music. When I did start buying their music it was a revelation of just how good they were.
I can’t imagine anyone being so musically illiterate as to post such a thread. It is mind numbingly stupid.
I have to admit that while I recognise their importance and impact on the music industry and popular culture etc the Beatles have always left me cold, I just don’t enjoy their music at all.
I dunno, looks like they’re in the suits that Epstein pushed and Lennon hated until he saw it got him better gigs. Again, I’m not saying they’re wholly created, they certainly had the necessary songwriting skills when combined with Martin, but that they were guided into the role of teenage heartthrobs in their early era. Without Epstein and Martin, it’s really possible that you wouldn’t know their names.
And if Mozart’s dad didn’t put him on the Aristocratic Chitlin’ Circuit when he was maybe 5, and Joseph Jackson didn’t abuse Michael and the boys to get out of Gary, would we know them?
The fact that the Beatles are NOT a Boy Band, but rather a real band packaged at first as a teenybopper band is essential to their arc. They needed polish and push from Epstein and production from Martin. They played the game. But as the 60’s unfolded, the Beatles shed their packaging, or, rather, dictated how they would package themselves. And they ended up playing their own game that shook up the music industry and changed the stakes from sales to cultural icons and artists.
So funny how a subtle distinction leads to ongoing debate. I think we all agree on: Did they accept some packaging, market to girls, etc? Were they assembled and scripted? No. Did they function as a band before and after their Packaged stage? Yes.
I enjoy music enough that I will follow startup bands just to watch the process unfold. It’s a tough business to break into the big leagues even with mentors.
While you can say Epstein and Martin fueled their early success it still took serious talent to grow like they did. And that’s the difference between One Hit Wonders and long term success stories. It’s REAAAAAALLY difficult to come up with hit after hit after hit. It’s even harder to broaden your style while maintaining an identity.
look at Ray Charles. He was all over the musical map yet he was distinctly Ray Charles. It takes raw talent to do that. If you listen to the Beatles there are distinct sounds that each member contributes that make up the band. I’m not a musician so I can’t explain it but Ringo has a distinct sound. It’s almost as if he’s deliberately striking the drums on the backside of the beat. He’s playing to them rather than the other way around. And he’s the one keeping the tempo. Maybe he can’t set drums on fire like Buddy Rich but he’s an infinitely better musician than Rich ever was when playing with other musicians.
The way Paul, George, and John play of each other is spot on. It wasn’t just in the studio where they could hack away at it until they get it right. They did this playing live. They collectively understood music. This is what makes good bands stand out and that’s before the creation of the songs. That’s another level of talent.
Yes, George Martin tweaked them in ways they probably didn’t fully appreciate. He’s the 5th Beatle. He was instrumental (literally) for things like the opening note on Hard Days Night. He had a way of steering them musically that deserves more credit than he was given.
