20
   

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

 
 
Brandon9000
 
  0  
Reply Thu 3 Sep, 2009 12:53 pm
@kickycan,
kickycan wrote:

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. In order to have an opinion that's worth anything, you'd first have to be familiar with their music. If you take 100 photos of your home and I see 1, I can evaluate your home, but how much would my evaluation be worth based on so little information? How many of the songs on my list above are you familar with? You cannot win this argument, because you seem to be defending the practice of evaluating something without knowing anything about it.
kickycan
 
  3  
Reply Thu 3 Sep, 2009 01:39 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:
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.


And that is why you keep arguing with me about how great they were, and not why they were so popular, which is what I've been arguing. If talent were the only thing that made people huge stars Vic Wooten would be one of the most popular artists on the planet, instead of someone that only music nuts know. Rush would have been bigger than Elvis, and the guy with no arms who plays guitar with his feet on the 6 train every once in a while would be a huge star instead of some shaggy unknown.

Brandon9000 wrote:
On the other hand, you are offering an opinion about the Beatles and their music.


Actually, I'm offering an opinion about the Beatles and their popularity. Yes, their music is a part of why they were so popular, but there are many other factors, which you seem to be disregarding, which shows me that you have very limited knowledge of how the music business works and what makes a band popular.


Brandon9000 wrote:
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.


And that is why you keep arguing with me about how great they were, and not why they were so popular, which is what I've been arguing.

Brandon9000 wrote:
In order to have an opinion that's worth anything, you'd first have to be familiar with their music.


Yes, and I am.

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.

Brandon9000 wrote:
you seem to be defending the practice of evaluating something without knowing anything about it.


No, it's you that is doing that.

I win!
Brandon9000
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 3 Sep, 2009 02:39 pm
@kickycan,
kickycan wrote:

...
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.

If, as you say, you are familiar with the 15 songs I listed, then, yes, you have the right to evaluate them. I find it very, very hard to believe that you are familiar with all of those specific songs, because I simply cannot comprehend how someone would know them and not believe that the Beatles were on a talent par with the greatest composers of history. 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.
sozobe
 
  2  
Reply Thu 3 Sep, 2009 02:45 pm
@Brandon9000,
Basically, he thinks people are stupid.

Not that I completely disagree with that hypothesis.

But it seems that he personally thinks the Beatles were plenty talented, but that many OTHER people who are plenty talented don't get anywhere in particular, and that talent alone isn't enough to make you a megastar on the order of the Beatles. That the Beatles might have been talented but their cuteness was what catapulted them to megastardom. Because people are stupid and more easily swayed by cuteness than talent.

I don't really agree with that argument in terms of the Beatles, but that's how I read what Kicky's been saying.
kickycan
 
  3  
Reply Thu 3 Sep, 2009 02:50 pm
@Brandon9000,
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
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Sep, 2009 02:51 pm
@sozobe,
Yup, pretty much that's it.
Brandon9000
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 3 Sep, 2009 02:59 pm
@kickycan,
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.
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Sep, 2009 03:01 pm
@Brandon9000,
he didn't appreciate the shrub either.

go figure...
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  2  
Reply Thu 3 Sep, 2009 03:27 pm
@kickycan,
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.
Sglass
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Sep, 2009 03:35 pm
Question for the Canadians.

There was a Canadian rock group that sprang up in the 70's who were compared to the Beatles. Merry and I attended a press party for them in Boston.

They were really good.

Any ideas who they were. I'd probably remember the name if I heard it.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Sep, 2009 03:36 pm
The Beatles, like most of their type of thing, were popular because they were marketed to strike a note in the population which was there to be struck at that time. It was to do with damp seating in the theatres. It was part of the ride of the Valkyries circa early sixties.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  2  
Reply Thu 3 Sep, 2009 03:38 pm
@Brandon9000,
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.
Brandon9000
 
  0  
Reply Thu 3 Sep, 2009 04:45 pm
@kickycan,
kickycan wrote:

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.

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. Another thing which led me to challenge your actual knowledge of their work was other statements which seem to indicate a lack of familiarity with the subject, for instance:

kickycan wrote:
...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.


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.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Sep, 2009 05:18 pm
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
The Beatles held twelve positions on the Billboard Hot 100 singles chart, including the top five positions.


So? If all the teenage girls bought their records they would be high in the charts.

Why did the teenage girls buy the records in such numbers is the real question.
0 Replies
 
Sglass
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Sep, 2009 07:35 pm
@Sglass,
Just remembered the Canadian group's name.

the PAUPERS
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Sep, 2009 05:37 am
@Merry Andrew,
Merry Andrew wrote:

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.

Didn't he also say that without that they would barely be remembered?
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Sep, 2009 12:43 pm
@Brandon9000,
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

Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Sep, 2009 01:11 pm
@kickycan,
kickycan wrote:

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

Okay, this puts it in perspective a little. There are a lot of young people who will tell you that the Beatles were mediocre, but when you check, they've only heard "Let it Be," Lady Madonna," and "Yellow Submarine." This was already a pet peeve of mine, and I mistakenly believed that you were one of those. I don't agree with your conclusion, but you're not doing what I thought you were. Incidentally, a new film about John Lennon's childhood, called "Nowhere Boy" is coming out soon, although I don't know exactly when.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Sep, 2009 01:58 pm
They had no John Hammond saying "Wow!!" who the **** is that kid. They had no Robert Shelton (RIP) who wrote in the NYT-

Quote:
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.


They had been around the circuits. They were well known before they were WELL KNOWN.

They were marketed by someone who had an understanding of the Zeitgeist.

They had haircuts for ****'s sake.

Dylan wasn't marketed. He was Hammond's Folly. What a hick they all said when his first album bombed and it had this on it-

Quote:
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.


I wanna hold your hand hey hey hey--can I **** you know?



0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Sep, 2009 02:17 pm
What I think happened was that the Moms and Pops and the Bishops were getting a bit worried about rock and roll and The Beatles were invented to try to make it sound respectable. They did get into the Honours List and went to the Palace to be partonised all to ****. I believe Mr Lennon returned his gong in a fit of pique amidst batteries of flashbulbs because the world wasn't being run according to how he thought it should be.

And Mac is a "Sir". A gallant knight. You should have seen his face when that Heather creamed him in court. Dearest shags on record I should think and we had one millionaire claiming £47,000ers.

We all like Ringo though. He advertised Pizza Huts, or pizza huts, and now he's doing an insurance company.

They were a sort of heat sink for all that pent up energy which Media was learning how to pimp.
 

Related Topics

Favorite Beatles Song - Discussion by Brandon9000
Are the Beatles the best band? - Question by Riddler101
Dick Rowe and the Infamous Decca Audition - Discussion by Brandon9000
Beatles History - Discussion by Brandon9000
Something - Discussion by edgarblythe
50 Years ago today. The Beatles - - Discussion by edgarblythe
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/20/2022 at 01:09:06