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

Brandon9000 wrote:

kickycan wrote:

dlowan wrote:

You're nuts.

That seems to be the prevailing opinion on this thread. Ha! As we all know, in an insane world, a sane man must appear insane.

By the way, I'm not saying they weren't talented. I'm saying those little screaming girls are what made them big enough to be noticed at all. I once saw an interview with Paul and Ringo, where, in answering a question about how big they'd expected to be when they first started out, Ringo responded, "we thought we'd be big in Liverpool."

And without the cuteness, I am convinced that that's exactly what would have happened.

I strongly suspect that you know very little of their work. How many of the songs on my list above are you familiar with?

I strongly suspect that you know very little about how the music business works. Have you seen the show, "American Idol" at all? I know every one of those songs, some of them I can even play on the guitar.

I'm not trying to evaluate the quality of the music business or the show "American Idol," or I would familiarize myself with them first.

On the other hand, you are offering an opinion about the Beatles and their music.

I'm not trying to evaluate the quality of the music business or the show "American Idol," or I would familiarize myself with them first.

In order to have an opinion that's worth anything, you'd first have to be familiar with their music.

How many of the songs on my list above are you familar with?

you seem to be defending the practice of evaluating something without knowing anything about it.

...

Brandon9000 wrote:

How many of the songs on my list above are you familar with?

All of them, like I told you. My best friend growing up was the biggest Beatles fan I've ever known, and we used to listen to their music all the time.

I have to believe that either (a) despite what you say, you are not familar with those specific songs, or (b) there is just something going on here that I don't understand.

Brandon9000 wrote:

I have to believe that either (a) despite what you say, you are not familar with those specific songs, or (b) there is just something going on here that I don't understand.

I'll go with choice (b).

You don't seem to understand that I'm not evaluating their talent, I'm evaluating their popularity.

kickycan wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

I have to believe that either (a) despite what you say, you are not familar with those specific songs, or (b) there is just something going on here that I don't understand.

I'll go with choice (b).

You don't seem to understand that I'm not evaluating their talent, I'm evaluating their popularity.

It has never been my impression that you're a liar - at all, but what you're telling me strikes me as so unlikely, that I would like to be face to face to ask you to hum a few bars of "It Won't Be Long" and "All I've Got to Do." My suspicion is that you cannot, but not being face to face, I'll simply have to consider it some kind of mystery.

Brandon9000 wrote:

kickycan wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

I have to believe that either (a) despite what you say, you are not familar with those specific songs, or (b) there is just something going on here that I don't understand.

I'll go with choice (b).

You don't seem to understand that I'm not evaluating their talent, I'm evaluating their popularity.

It has never been my impression that you're a liar - at all, but what you're telling me strikes me as so unlikely, that I would like to be face to face to ask you to hum a few bars of "It Won't Be Long" and "All I've Got to Do." My suspicion is that you cannot, but not being face to face, I'll simply have to consider it some kind of mystery.

I would wager that I've listened to more rare Beatles songs than you even know exist. I'm a little older than you, and I've been a major music nut for a long time.

But why do you keep coming back to this? Whether or not I know those songs or feel that they are great songs, which, incidentally, I do, has no bearing on my point at all. My point is about the Beatles' popularity, not their talent, although talent does play a role of course.

...I further hypothesize that if they looked hideous...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.

The Beatles held twelve positions on the Billboard Hot 100 singles chart, including the top five positions.

I really don't think Brandon understands what you're saying at all, Kicky. I think I do. And, to the extent that I understand, I have to agree with you. But -- again, if I understand you correctly -- it's a meaningless argument. OF course people who present a certain image are going to have a better shot at popularity than those who have nothing more than talent to offer! That's so simplistic it's axiomatic. Teenage girls swooned over them because they were so cute, rather than because their music was great? So what? It doesn't detract from the greatness of the music. What you are offering here, kicky, is not some new insight but, rather, a statement of something so obvious that it's not surprising that a few of the posters (me included) didn't quite understand what you meant at first.

Are you older than me? I'm going to be 56 in a week or two. If you say you know the songs, I cannot challenge, it, I just consider it bizarre that someone could be really familiar with songs such as the ones I've mentioned and not consider the Beatles to be among history's greatest composers, with enough raw talent to almost transcend marketing.

I cannot state authoritatively what would have happened if their appearance had been different, but before Sgt. Pepper, they had dozens of hits, not a couple. During the week of 4 April 1964, The Beatles held twelve positions on the Billboard Hot 100 singles chart, including the top five positions. I cannot say anything about foreign language rock bands, but I know that no other English language band in history has come close to a feat like this, which is why, when you refer to a couple of cute hits in the 60s, it would seem to suggest a lack of knowledge.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Are you older than me? I'm going to be 56 in a week or two. If you say you know the songs, I cannot challenge, it, I just consider it bizarre that someone could be really familiar with songs such as the ones I've mentioned and not consider the Beatles to be among history's greatest composers, with enough raw talent to almost transcend marketing.

I do consider them among history's greatest composers. So we agree there. I think our difference is in how much faith we have that talent alone will translate to popularity. I think that marketing and the right look, as far as the music business is concerned, are almost on an equal level with talent. And as for our ages, you have about a dozen years on me, but as I told you, my best friend as a kid and I used to listen to Beatles records all the time, and he was always looking for rarities, alternate versions, etc., so I know the Beatles music very well.

Brandon9000 wrote:

I cannot state authoritatively what would have happened if their appearance had been different, but before Sgt. Pepper, they had dozens of hits, not a couple. During the week of 4 April 1964, The Beatles held twelve positions on the Billboard Hot 100 singles chart, including the top five positions. I cannot say anything about foreign language rock bands, but I know that no other English language band in history has come close to a feat like this, which is why, when you refer to a couple of cute hits in the 60s, it would seem to suggest a lack of knowledge.

Yes, but they were around for four years by 1964. 1962 is the year when they had their first hit, and it was during the next year or so that "Beatlemania" took off, during their following tour. That is when the girls began to swoon and scream and faint on sight. They'd only had a couple hits at that point.

And here's something else for you to chew on. In the Billboard Hot 100 all-time top artists, which is based on hits, sales, etc, Madonna is number 2 after the Beatles. And Olivia Newton-John is in the top 20.

Was it all musical talent that brought Madonna all that success? If you believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you. And sure, Olivia Newton_John was talented, but was she THAT talented? No, but she sure as hell was cute. And Elvis, another one of the biggest selling artists of all time, never even wrote one song. But he sure was a sex symbol. So you see, talent is not the be-all and end-all of what makes a band popular. Cuteness counts way more than you think.

http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/specials/hot100/charts/top100-artists-20.shtml

Mr. Dylan is vague about his antecedents and birthplace, but it matters less where he has been than where he is going, and that would seem to be straight up.

I'm out here a thousand miles from my home,
Walkin' a road other men have gone down.
I'm seein' your world of people and things,
Your paupers and peasants and princes and kings.

Hey, hey Woody Guthrie, I wrote you a song
'Bout a funny ol' world that's a-comin' along.
Seems sick an' it's hungry, it's tired an' it's torn,
It looks like it's a-dyin' an' it's hardly been born.

Hey, Woody Guthrie, but I know that you know
All the things that I'm a-sayin' an' a-many times more.
I'm a-singin' you the song, but I can't sing enough,
'Cause there's not many men that done the things that you've done.

Here's to Cisco an' Sonny an' Leadbelly too,
An' to all the good people that traveled with you.
Here's to the hearts and the hands of the men
That come with the dust and are gone with the wind.

I'm a-leaving' tomorrow, but I could leave today,
Somewhere down the road someday.
The very last thing that I'd want to do
Is to say I've been hittin' some hard travelin' too.