20
   

If the Beatles weren't cute, they would have been just another band.

 
 
Reply Thu 27 Aug, 2009 10:41 am
I was just watching a video of them from their first US tour, and girls went absolutely wet at the mere sight of them. I believe, because of how insane the reaction was to them because of their looks, they were given much easier access to that higher level of greatness that they achieved. I further hypothesize that if they looked hideous, like say, BiPolar Bear or Gustavratzenhofer, they would have been known in the world today as some average band with maybe a couple cute pop hits back in the 60s and nothing more.

Don't you agree?

 
shewolfnm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Aug, 2009 10:43 am
@kickycan,
yeah.

like aerosmith
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Aug, 2009 10:45 am
@kickycan,
yes, verily.
I heard they stole a lot of their songs from George Martin, their producer and arranger
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Aug, 2009 10:52 am
@panzade,
Is that why they all had hit songs even after they broke up?

One of the greatest collaborative artistic groups, ever.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Aug, 2009 11:00 am
Some of you seem skeptical. I'm not kidding. If girls didn't go ga-ga over them because they were cute, I truly believe we would not have had the pleasure of knowing how great their music could become. They would have been a simple pop band, and as soon as they tried doing anything that varied from that, they would have been **** on and tossed on the scrap heap of musical history. Sargeant Pepper's would have been universally panned and would have probably marked the end of their musical legacy.
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Aug, 2009 11:05 am
@kickycan,
you got a point in my book.

if you listen to their early stuff with crowds, the high pitch swooning screams are verra annoying.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMwZsFKIXa8&feature=related
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Aug, 2009 11:18 am
The Beatles only wrote and performed some of the best music ever. If all of their fans had been girls, I might concede a little to your argument.
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Aug, 2009 11:36 am
@edgarblythe,
I was ten years old when the Beatles hit America. I thought their music was cool and fun. This was about April 1964, five months after a national period of grief over the assassination of President Kennedy. We were ready for something upbeat. Kickycan is to young to have experienced that moment in popular culture.
engineer
 
  2  
Reply Thu 27 Aug, 2009 11:41 am
@kickycan,
kickycan wrote:

Some of you seem skeptical. I'm not kidding. If girls didn't go ga-ga over them because they were cute, I truly believe we would not have had the pleasure of knowing how great their music could become.

You may have it backwards. If it weren't for the music, these guys would have been just another group of pretty-boys (at best). I was listening to a radio story (NPR) about a group of middle aged men who put together a "boy band" parody group a few years ago. They sang bubble-gum pop and pranced around the stage, etc. Soon teenage girls were screaming in the stands and mobbing them. It wasn't for their looks. At the same time, less talented boy bands have faded from view after a short time. The Beatles had staying power.
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Thu 27 Aug, 2009 11:50 am
@engineer,
Well, it really was their music, I think. There weren't such a lot of girls screaming around when they played in Hamburg/Germany in the early 60's - but they certainly were a lot better than 'just another rock 'n' roll band' ... to my own memory, when I saw/heard them in the Star Club. (Offically of course not, because I wasn't 16 then.)
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Aug, 2009 12:01 pm
So... why didn't my musical career go anywhere?
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Aug, 2009 12:08 pm
@wandeljw,
That's another aspect of it. Plus, every time it seemed they had achieved their full potential, they got even better.
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  2  
Reply Thu 27 Aug, 2009 12:19 pm
@kickycan,
Quote:
I was just watching a video of them from their first US tour, and girls went absolutely wet at the mere sight of them. I believe, because of how insane the reaction was to them because of their looks, they were given much easier access to that higher level of greatness that they achieved. I further hypothesize that if they looked hideous, like say, BiPolar Bear or Gustavratzenhofer, they would have been known in the world today as some average band with maybe a couple cute pop hits back in the 60s and nothing more.

Don't you agree?


I totally disagree. (And, btw, this is the first time I've known you to be completely wrong, not just partially fucked up.)

OK, you're right to this extent -- the floor-mop hairdos, the Carnaby Street shirts, the somewhat kookie behavior all helped to assure their popularity in that their antics kept them in the limelight. They were media darlings as well as performers.

But they were also really fine musicians. Without even thinking about it too long, I can think of half a dozen Lennon/McCartney songs that were hits for the Beatles and have become standards for everyone else. Girls pissing their pants? It wasn't just teeny-bopper chicks that made the fab five Number One. No less a musical icon than Leonard Bernstein was quoted as saying that Beatles songs were among the best things that had happened to popular music in his lifetime.

Albums like Revolver and Rubber Soul will remain classics for a long, long time. And the covers, of course, just keep coming. Jazz combos these days don't seem able to play a set without a musical nod to the Beatles. Songs like "Eleanor Rigby", "Norwegian Wood", "Rita, Rita Metermaid" have become jazz standards.

Sorry, Kicky, but you're 100 % wrong on this one.

DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Aug, 2009 12:21 pm
@Merry Andrew,
Merry Andrew wrote:
Jazz combos these days don't seem able to play a set without a musical nod to the Beatles. Songs like "Eleanor Rigby", "Norwegian Wood", "Rita, Rita Metermaid" have become jazz standards.

Yup. How many bands have covered "Mmm Bop"?
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Aug, 2009 02:29 pm
@Merry Andrew,
Quote:
(And, btw, this is the first time I've known you to be completely wrong, not just partially fucked up.)


Kicky's just pullin your chain...he loves to stir the gumbo
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Aug, 2009 02:40 pm
@kickycan,
My kid is a huge Beatles fan, and became one after listening to a tribute band (made up of middle-aged, bewigged, decidedly UNcute guys who are nonetheless pretty good musicians/ singers -- enough to do the music justice, anyway). Not that she's some major music critic, but the music is definitely what got her.
chai2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Aug, 2009 02:54 pm
I hafta say I agree with kicky.

honestly, I never did see the big attraction.

lately it seems the radio, when I turn it on in the car is playing paul mccartney songs quite a bit, more than usual. makes me switch stations or turn it off, because him in particular I don't like.

is he going on tour or dying or something?


never did understand that girls screaming stuff either.
I mean, you can't hear anything if you're screaming.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Thu 27 Aug, 2009 03:01 pm
@kickycan,
kicky wrote:
I was just watching a video of them from their first US tour, and girls went absolutely wet at the mere sight of them. I believe, because of how insane the reaction was to them because of their looks, they were given much easier access to that higher level of greatness that they achieved. [...]

Don't you agree?

Actually, no I don't. When I first listened to Sgt Pepper, I had no idea what the Beatles looked like. That's because my first copy of it didn't come out of a record store; it came from a friend of mine who had taped his record for me. But although I had no way of knowing if the Beatles were as sexy as Mick Jagger or as off-putting as the Elvis of the 70s, I immediately recognized that Pepper was a once-in-a-century album: witty texts, brilliant music, all wrapped up in a tight, sparkly, perfectly timed package. The Beatles deserve their fame for the mere strength of their work. No, let me correct that: They deserve it on the strength of the second half of their work, starting sometime around Rubber Soul.

This is not to dismiss the virtue of cuteness, mind you. Indeed, it's a quality I'd rather like to possess myself. I imagine it would be flattering and enjoyable if girls went absolutely wet at the sight of one -- wouldn't you agree?
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Aug, 2009 03:11 pm
I do agree though that brilliance + cuteness will get you further than brilliance + hideousness.

I started a thread a while ago about a band called Slade and its lead singer, Noddy Holder. I only know about him post-deafness but it seems like he really was (is) a talented guy, who had a great voice and wrote some great songs. His versions are pretty much unknown in America though. He, and the rest of Slade, were definitely NOT lookers:

http://www.cvibes.com/images/slade_press.jpg

I think if they'd been cuter they probably would've become better-known.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Aug, 2009 03:13 pm
@sozobe,
You have a pretty astute kid there.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » If the Beatles weren't cute, they would have been just another band.
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 08/15/2020 at 08:16:51