• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Why DID the Beatles Get so Famous?

Why DID the Beatles get so famous?

  • Total voters
    203
#181
DiabolusInMusic said:
You are extremely hung up on what you perceive to be a negative label. I'll be sure to get off your lawn old man but try to remember that a boy band is not a negative term any more than a rock band. It is just a label and your perception of that label.

Just for reference point, here is what you get when you search google images for "Beatlemania," piles of pictures of screaming girls. We are talking about what made them "bigger than Jesus" and it was the mania, caused by girls. Hell, ask people how to get people to your shows on TB and I bet you the top answer is "girls."

beatlemania - Google Search

Anyways, I'm out, it has been fun discussing with you, even through you thinly veiled insults about my "sad" posts.
Click to expand...

I'm not hung up on "what I perceive to be a negative label." I have made a pretty strong case that the label is NOT ENTIRELY ACCURATE, and as such, has a negative connotation, based on misrepresenting what the Beatles actually were, which was a pretty solid rock and roll band. IF you define them as a "boy band," you have to change the meaning of what a "boy band" IS, because there are major differences between The Beatles, and all the boy bands that have existed since.

The Osmonds
Menudo
New Edition
New Kids on the Block
Boyz II Men
Backstreet Boys
Jonas Brothers
One Direction

What every single one of these BOY BANDS have in common is that they didn't play instruments; had songwriters; were put together by entertainment professional management companies; wrote songs aimed at pre-teen girls; had choreographed dance moves; and had a limited appeal for a limited time.

NONE of those things can be said about the Beatles.

Here is a photo of BOY BAND New Kids on the Block performing:

new-kids-block.jpg


This band is configured entirely different than the Beatles. None of the "New Kids" are holding instruments.

Here is a photo of BOY BAND The Osmonds:

The-Osmonds.jpg


BOY BAND the Backstreet Boys:

6a00d8341c630a53ef0148c6899f76970c-pi.jpg


These acts are DISTINCTLY different from the Beatles in almost every possible way. The Beatles were a Rock and Roll Band; none of these acts were.

As for any negative connotations, I wouldn't be caught dead listening to any of these Boy Bands. Their music was shallow fluff, written FOR THEM.

New Kids on the Block were:

Jonathon Knight
Jordan Knight
Joey McIntire
Donny Wahlberg
Danny Wood

The songs on their first album were written by:

Maurice Starr, who wrote FOR them.
Tom Bell and William Hart, whose Delfonics song they covered.
The ONLY songwriting credits on the first album are two co-writing credits for Wahlberg, who wrote with Starr, who also wrote for New Edition.

The very first Beatles album contains EIGHT Lennon/McCartney compositions, and six covers, NONE of which were written FOR them.

Need I go on? The Beatles can only be called "a boy band" by completely changing the meaning of the term "boy band," no matter WHAT Paul McCartney said one time.

None of this is my opinion. It is all supported by facts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Imaginary Pony, GregC and OldDog52
#182
MegaSwing said:
Mick Jagger isn't cute in any known universe.
Click to expand...

Mick Jagger was considered to be one of the sexiest men who ever lived by MILLIONS of women for most of the sixties and seventies, and now that he's a wrinkled, weird looking old man, he still has a good deal of women hot for him. In the early sixties, he was definitely considered "cute" by the teeny-boppers, and your or my opinion of his looks don't really hold a lot of weight.

I have never been attracted to him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Imaginary Pony
#185
mellowinman said:
Mick Jagger was considered to be one of the sexiest men who ever lived by MILLIONS of women for most of the sixties and seventies, and now that he's a wrinkled, weird looking old man, he still has a good deal of women hot for him. In the early sixties, he was definitely considered "cute" by the teeny-boppers, and your or my opinion of his looks don't really hold a lot of weight.

I have never been attracted to him.
Click to expand...
He might attract the ladies, but that don't make him cute. I've never quite understood his thing. He is quite fit, however, even today.
 
#191
JimmyM said:
Totally disagreed. Their early stuff was completely innovative. Pop rock? Absolutely. But there was nothing out there like it before they hit, and tons of stuff out there like it after they hit. Nobody was using the advanced chord structures and complex harmonies like they were doing and playing rock and roll. Musical acts back then did one or the other before the Beatles came along.
Click to expand...
Right listen to their cover of "Twist and Shout", one of John's best vocals imo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JimmyM
#192
I agree that "boy band," as the term has come to be understood, is a poor descriptor for The Beatles. The only facet they might qualify for is multiple good-looking young men. Otherwise, nothing in common whatsoever, obviously.

However, FWIW, Wikipedia states that The Four Seasons also get the "boy band" label, which is another head-scratcher. All four members of The Four Seasons either played an instrument or was a virtuoso pop singer (Frankie Valli). Bob Gaudio was a band member and wrote or co-wrote many of their hits. I think they probably had more studio help with session musicians, but in the early days they did quite a bit.

Early doo-wop and vocal groups like the Inkspots and later The Jackson 5 get the label too. I think the more pure singing and choreography, and the less songwriting and playing of musical instruments, the better the "boy band" label sticks.

The Beatles definitely do not qualify.
 
Last edited:
#193
Winterglo said:
I read Pete Best was fired because he was too good looking. Also, he wouldn't change his hairstyle. ??
Click to expand...
The hair was part of it, sure, but the main reason is that while he was probably a better technical drummer than Ringo (or so people who were there claim), he also had shaky tempo. If the Beatles hadn't gotten Ringo, Pete wouldn't have played on their first recordings with George Martin anyway, because George was going to replace him with Andy White. Andy did play the release version of "Love Me Do," but gave Ringo a shot as well and quit using Andy after that.
 
#200
Of course they were a "boy band" by the standards of the day. All pop/rock groups were marketed that way. The Beatles were no exception, and were arguably better at it than their peers of the day. That does not mean they were a "boy band" by today's definition.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back