There is a girl in Hanson.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Terms of reference?
 

How else am I supposed to respond to asinine comments such as "The Beatles are a doo-wop group"?

Keep cool people. Don't want boys banned here!

[:D Sorry!]

Sexist pig!!

I guess that's why artists like Alice Cooper, Ozzy Osbourne, Steven Tyler, David Bowie, etc., etc., etc. have said they would not even be in the music industry today were it not for that historic Ed Sullivan show on Feb. 9, 1964.

Thats because they watched the Ed Sullivan show and all realized how much tail they could get if they became musicians. :)

I agree. I like to equate that the Beatles career would be equal to the Backstreet Boys (if they wrote their own songs, played their own instruments) and then within 10 years, transformed themselves into an innovative band of Radioheads caliber.

The Beatles were innovative from the very beginning, with landmark records like Please Please Me and A Hard Day's Night.

Exactly - for that time, that stuff was cutting edge. Not to mention, it only took them about 3 years to go from I Wanna Hold Your Hand to A Day In The Life.

Now adays, bands take longer than that in between releases that sound exactly the same.

Because their corporate handlers wanted them to churn out that music? Care to borrow a shovel?

I assume your girlfriend feels vindicated by the results of your poll?

And I don't mean that in a dirty way.

Wrong again. They were actually encouraged to record less material, so a new release wouldn't eat into the sales of their previous release, but they were far too prolific for that. Not to mention, their record company didn't really like it when they started evolving around 1965 - they thought they had gotten too weird. But by then, they were big enough to do whatever they wanted.

- "corporate handlers"? - I'd ask you to name whoever these are, but I don't think you know what you're talking about.

Why do you think that I'd tell her about you dorks? :p

Exactly! I hate the term "boy band" b/c when people use it, they use it to describe groups that don't even meet the definition of a band (at least the Monkees could play their own instruments...well at least Michael Nesmith :)) I tend to think it is used b/c it rolls off the tongue easily like the "girl groups". Maybe they should be called "guy groups".

Anyway...if you want to see the original guy groups, go back to the late 50's early 60's and see what The Beatles competition was. The "don't play instruments, don't write music, look pretty and sing manufactured music" were solo artists at the time and weren't really packaged as a group except on tours together. They were called "Teen Idols" and examples of them were Frankie Avalon, Fabian, Bobby Vee, Pat Boone, and on down the line. But even these guys had more talent in their little fingers than most of the guy groups of today together.


If you don't understand The Beatles influence and talent, don't even speak about them...b/c it makes you look ignorant

This thread almost makes me cry. People spending time to debate the appeal of the greatest rock and roll band of all time.

If you asked the Beatles what they were circa 1962, I bet they'd say a Rhythm and Blues Band. If you asked them in 1964, they'd probably answer Rock and Roll.

They stopped touring because they didn't enjoy playing shows they couldn't here over screaming little girls. They didn't relish in that fanbase.

The fact that songs like "Help!" are on the same album as "I need you" "I've Just Seen a Face" and "Yesterday" should answer this question for most people. And Help! is probably considered a boy band album by most folks.

I'll defend the Beatles until the day I die.

Beatles started as a boy band but grew out of it.

Damn those New Kids On The Block for giving boy bands a bad rap. I guess their millions of dollars comfort them though!

Fact is I assume a lot of people here in this thread are old, hate MTV, and love their Beatles and I don't know Led Zep or something. Kids today will look fondly back on their Backstreet Nsyncers.

Sure the Beatles will live on, but you can't expect each new generation to be a slave to "older" music.

The Beatles were never a boy band. End of discussion.


NEXT!

When I think of a boy band, I think of some record company guy putting together a group that includes a bunch of "types": The rebel, the cute one, the nice one, etc. Then they give them songs, dance moves, etc. The Beatles don't fit that at all, since they came together on their own, and wrote their own music. For what it's worth, Hanson doesn't really fit it either (doesn't mean they don't suck, but they really aren't a boy band).

The beatles.....were NOT a damn boy band.

I will concede that people thought the Beatles were threatening after the Ed Sullivan show. Although I don't think their daughters did.

I won't concede that I'm a clueless dolt. Back off.

The Beatles were a bunch of lads who played pubs, wore black leather jackets, and rolled drunks in Hamburg. But by the time they crossed the Atlantic, they were cute moptops wearing jackets and ties. They were a good enough imitation of a boy band that no one in Shea stadium could hear them over the screaming girls.

Don't pay any attention to it. Most of the Star Wars threads on this site have been closed, so Rivero needs to release his anger in other ways. :)

I would say more bubble gum in the beginning than a boy band.... (I Wanna Hold Your...This Boy? ugh) but did massive strides in 10 years than most bands could ever dream about.

If people say they started out as a boy band they ended up as maters in RnR...no problem with that. I think a lot of people do not realize that the life span of the Beatles was extremely short. How many albums do current bands put out every year? None? It takes 2-4 years? How long did the Beatles last 10 years tops? and how many albums? Amazing...

If anything can be debated it damn sure is this statement. Most influential sure.......greatest?

Let's see -

Tool: in 10 years - one EP and 3 albums that essentially sound the same.

Beatles: in 8 years - more than 10 albums, including a double and countless single and b-sides not on albums, and all of it far more eclectic than any band before, or since.

Boy!! I sure implied that Tool was the greatest band from that post didnt I

:lol: