Would the Beatles Make it in the '80's and '90's?

[Demian]

I say no...People are so bombarded by the Lack of Talent found on MTV, that Video bands are accepted az Talent...The Beatles would have still been the Beatles, But the Masses would have thought they weren't lousy enough and unattainable by Lazy Asses to really be any good...Bitter thread, eh? Guess wut I've been watching...Favorite video band: Gorillaz...I must admit, I don't care for Pearl Jam's music (do like Mother Lovebone), but I like the things they stand for: music on vinyl, no MTV, and hitting the concert promoters in the Face...Wut I don't like: Their music, and sitting in Dennis Rodman seats at the Sonics/Bulls Championships

 

[lavender]

 

[shadowsource]

i think they would -

They blew the world away in seconds. By all accounts, there was very little resistance. Like Elvis. Nirvana did the same thing to a much smaller extent - their first 120 Minutes appearance made them famous within a day or two. That kind of electrifying debut is a star thing, unstoppable, not a spin thing, not contrivance. It's magical, but the industry exists now to prevent magic from getting loose, from being uncontrolled.

But Mother Lovebone! They were 1,000 times better than Pearl Jam. I played PJ's first cd one time, then traded it in, having expected some true resonance of Mother Lovebone. Stardog Champion!

 

[Demian]

Man of the Golden Words

Temple of the Dog...Thanks, I'm not so bitter now

 

[GuyJD]

I would have to say NO. Music has changed since the Beatles and I don't think that they would have been able to change with the times.
Besides, if you'll notice, boy bands don't last in the music business very long. What ever happened to the New Kids On The Block, New Edition, Another Bad Creation? They all disappeared. All of the teenie boppers hate to hear it but I give N'Sync and Backstreet Boys no more than two years before they disappear. That's another reason why the Beatles would not make it in the 80', 90's, or today's music business.

 

[Demian]

Mozart will Last Forever...

My point exactly...This shit on MTV is, well...Shit
The Beatles will never fade away...Why be an MTV created band like Limp Bizkit, when you can talk to the Ancient One himself? Are you listening X-Man? I know you love Music

 

[Gringo]

The "Stones" can still fill stadiums and Paul McCartney can still draw a crowd, so I think the Beatles would have adapted.

 

[xlc67]

The beatles would spread today like west nile disease at a nudist convention...

They were the hardest working band in music, if you know even a little about them, and their talent as poets, lyricists, and songwriters on an individual and group basis is unsurpassed in many genres...

It pains me to hear Oasis mentioned in any type of similar comparison...

The beatles would have an easier time today than they did in 1962...but I'd be very curious as to what type of music they would produce with the influences out there today...

 

[shadowsource]

No way!

Besides, if you'll notice, boy bands don't last in the music business very long. What ever happened to the New Kids On The Block, New Edition, Another Bad Creation? They all disappeared. All of the teenie boppers hate to hear it but I give N'Sync and Backstreet Boys no more than two years before they disappear. That's another reason why the Beatles would not make it in the 80', 90's, or today's music business.

I'm not even a huge Beatles fan - I've generally preferred early Stones to the Beatles, and I hate McCartney - but you can't call the Beatles a boy band. They were incredible songwriters, spewing forth hooks in every direction, with quick-witted lyrics and ever-evolving musical tendencies. Would you call The Clash a boy band? Four or five dicks doesn't make a cliche. The bands you're citing are marketing devices. Beatles, Stones, Kinks were all cultural forces.

 

[lavender]

 

[Demian]

Fuckin' A!!!!!!!!!

You guyz Rock!!!!! I'm off to get a bottle of wine...Stick around and we'll see if some wierdness flies tonight...Thanks for partying on this thread or somewhere else on the Board

 

[xlc67]

Hey Lavy, I wasn't critiquing your commentary...I just dislike the two used in the same context...It goes beyond what you said, it's just a silly peeve...

Anyone who has ever sat down and listened to Sgt.Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band would have no doubt as to how powerful the Beatles were/are...

They did to rock what NASA did for space flight...

 

[lavender]

 

[xlc67]

How about the rest of the Album? (he asks, trying to hide his undying admiration for her)

 

[lavender]

 

[Laurel]

Pop music has always been the same.

We remember The Stones and The Beatles and we sigh and say, "Boy, music used to be brilliant! Look at the crap they play today!" But the truth is that all the bands you remember from past years are bands whose music was such that it stood the test of time. Go find a list of the hit songs from, say, 1959. You'll be appalled at some of the utter shite that was big. You'll be scratching your head trying to remember some of the bands that stayed at #1 for weeks at a time. So you're comparing the cream of the crop of a certain era with the one-hot-wonders of today. It's apples and oranges.

Pop has always been pop. Some of it sucks. Some of it's great. Parents used to cluck their tongues at The Beatles, and their parents clucked their tongues at that racy Big Band stuff. Kids growing up today will reminisce about the "brilliant" stuff they listened to, and their kid's music will be awful.

So, I think The Beatles would sell out stadiums today, and many of the people who adore them now would call them pop crap.

 

[shadowsource]

Sorry, Laurel, but I disagree -

I believe that marketing, packaging and total cynicism have devoured any semblance of genuine culture. Not so long ago, scenes took root and flourished in an arguably natural way. Now teens are paid by market researchers to go out and find and videograph any clothing, verbal, physical, athletic styles that might seem remotely packagable. It's virtually impossible for valid countercultures to spring up. The Beatles did, for a while, represent a counterculture, playing in Hamburg, growing. And this doesn't just apply to music, but also to film, literature, whatever. I feel bleak.
Putting it another way: I used to see a band that was selling records, and I related to their success. Now I simply know - and everyone else does, too - that they're deeply indebted to a record company that'll drop them if they don't sell 500,000 units pretty quickly. And most of them do get dropped. It's all about selling candy bars, and the McFlavors top the charts. I hope it's not permanent.

 

[Demian]

Laurel, iz my Standard here

And I do agree...My parents disliked the Beatles the way I see misuse of the Rap stage...And my grandparents thought Benny Goodman wuz vulgar...But there is a difference in the spirit of the music...I love Motown, but can't stand MTV...Example: the movie A Hard Days Night...They tried to get George Harrison to sell some teenager shirts and he said they sucked! The Beatles refused to sell out...None of these kid bands come anywhere near wut the Beatles have always been...Making it in the 90's and 2000? Where have their cd re-releases been on the Charts? #1's after all these years, and still there...It wuz Twenty Years ago Today...

 

[Laurel]

Re: Sorry, Laurel, but I disagree -

I believe that marketing, packaging and total cynicism have devoured any semblance of genuine culture. Not so long ago, scenes took root and flourished in an arguably natural way. Now teens are paid by market researchers to go out and find and videograph any clothing, verbal, physical, athletic styles that might seem remotely packagable. It's virtually impossible for valid countercultures to spring up. The Beatles did, for a while, represent a counterculture, playing in Hamburg, growing. And this doesn't just apply to music, but also to film, literature, whatever. I feel bleak.

Don't feel bleak! All that's always been there. Granted, with corporations buying up the media, it's more pronounced, but I think it's unfair to brand all modern or popular music as crap. It's not. There are some very fine bands getting airplay. There are also some really awful bands getting airplay.

Profit has ALWAYS been the motive for releasing music. There was no magic time when record labels put out music because they thought the performer was a swell gal and they wanted to enrich the music scene. It's a business. It's like the book publishing industry. In fact, it's worse in the book publishing industry. If you've written a biography and How-To's and Self-Help's are what's selling, good luck getting a book deal.

Music is art. Literature is art. Selling either is business. Business is about making money. There's nothing inherently evil about that so long as it's done ethically (which it isn't in the record industry, but that's a whole nuther thread).

The truly good music has always been the minority. There's wonderfully innovative things going on in modern music if you keep an open mind and take the time to dig a little. Hybrids of funk and rap and electronica and rock and classical...amazingly innovative, fun, listenable stuff. The latest Outkast record was absolutely amazing - totally fresh, classic, something for everyone. The new Jimmy Eats World record is excellent. The last Guru record was the best R&B record I've heard in a long time, and it got hardly any attention...

When we were all younger and music was more important to us, we had the time to read fanzines and buy CD's and make comp tapes for each other. Now, we've got responsibilities and families, and music isn't the priority it once was. We look at what's on MTV (which has ALWAYS been crap, from Day 1) and decide that all new music is shit because we just don't have the time to dig around and find all the new and interesting things that are happening. But that doesn't mean that they aren't out there. If anything, there's more available than ever before, what with the Internet and bands recording 24-track songs in their bedrooms.

None of these kid bands come anywhere near wut the Beatles have always been...Making it in the 90's and 2000? Where have their cd re-releases been on the Charts? #1's after all these years, and still there...It wuz Twenty Years ago Today...

I agree, Boy Bands suck. An exec hand-picks a bunch of models, hires songwriters, and creates hits. But that's nothing new. Remember The Monkees? Menudo? But the whole Britney/Nsync/etc. crew aren't dominating the scene anymore. The current Billboard Top 10:

1. Maxwell (R&B)
2. Juvenile (Rap)
3. Now...7 (Comp)
4. Alicia Keys (R&B - a surprise hit too, btw - good stuff)
5. 'N Sync (blah, suck)
6. The Isley Brothers (R&B)
7. Linkin Park (Rock)
8. Usher (R&B)
9. Staind (Rock)
10. J. Lo (Pop)

I think one of many problems with music right now is that no one's looking for a solid catalog band. They want that first record to be a #1, and if the single doesn't catch then that's it. Bands aren't allowed to grow. Look at REM and U2 - they had the opportunity to put out record after record, to build a following. But when Jewel's record came out, it was a big deal that the label worked the record for over a year. There's no loyalty.

The music industry is fucked. Though it may be slightly more fucked that it was 30 years ago, it's still fucked in the same way it's always been. But that doesn't mean that there isn't great music being created. And once in a while, something amazing will get the exposure it deserves.

So don't give up on music today. You don't like rap? There's R&B, there's rock, there's electronica, there's reggae, there's a zillion other genres with new artists composing brilliant new stuff.

 

[Laurel]

Oooh ooh!

I forgot to mention Ben Folds! Tell me these aren't great lyrics:

Let me tell ya'll what it's like
Being male, middle-class and white
It's a bitch, if you don't believe
Listen up to my new CD, sha-mon

I got shit runnin' throught my brain
It's so intense that I can't explain
All alone in my white-boy pain
Shake your booty while the band complains

I'm rockin' the suburbs, just like Michael Jackson did
I'm rockin' the suburbs, except that he was talented
I'm rockin' the suburbs, I take the cheques and face the facts
That some producer with computers fixes all my shitty tracks

I'm pissed off but I'm too polite
When people break in the McDonald's line
Mom and Dad you made me so uptight
I'm gonna cuss on the mic tonight

I don't know how much I can take
Girl, give me something I can break

I'm rockin' the suburbs, just like Quiet Riot did
I'm rockin' the suburbs, except that they were talented
I'm rockin' the suburbs, I take the cheques and face the facts
That some producer with computers fixes all my shitty tracks

In a haze these days, I pull up to the stop light
I can feel that something's not right
I can feel that someone's blasting me with hate and bass

Sendin' dirty vibes my way
'Cause my great great great great Grandad
Made someones' great great great great Grandaddies slaves

It wasn't my idea
It wasn't my idea
Never was my idea

I just drove to the store
For some preparation H

Ya'll don't know what it's like
Being male, middle-class and white
Ya'll don't know what it's like
Being male, middle-class and white
Ya'll don't know what it's like
Being male, middle-class and white
Ya'll don't know what it's like
Being male, middle class and white

It gets me real pissed off, it makes me wanna say
It gets me real pissed off and it makes me wanna say
It gets me real pissed off and it makes me wanna say...

FUCK!

Just like Jon Bon Jovi did
I'm rockin' the suburbs, except that he was talented
I'm rockin' the suburbs, I take the cheques and face the facts
That some producer with computers fixes all my shitty tracks

These days, yeah yeah
I'm rockin' the suburbs, yeah yeah
I'm rockin' the suburbs, yeah yeah

You'd better look out, because I'm gonna say 'Fuck'

 

[Demian]

Laurel, is it Wrong to say I'm not Alone in being In Love With You?

And back to the Rock and Roll!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Dillinger]

I'd say yes. They were talented (which isn't enough these days by itself I know but...)... not only were they talented but they had that "magic" together that made them more than just their individual parts... that would still be there...

And they had Brian Epstein - who would have been just as brilliant in the 80's and 90's as he was in the 60's... And they had George Martin - who also would have been just as brilliant.

My take on this - if you're going to speculate whether the Beatles would have made it in the 80's and 90's its only fair to assume that all the pieces they had that worked in their favor would still be in place...

And - yet another thing... the Beatles still sell and new generations continue to get into their music. The cd "Beatles One" didn't only sell to us old folks. Their music has held up. I think their music would be different because their influences would be different - maybe there would be more electronic elements - maybe more funk - more dance... but still great music.

I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU: - There is no doubt that the Beatles greatly influenced the course of pop/rock music. Just about every band today owes them a debt - if not directly then through the generations as they influenced the next generation of musicians who influenced the next and the next right up to the present. So since music has been shaped by them. Your proposition would remove the Beatles from having shaped the early days of pop/rock. So what would music be like today without them? Would pop have even survived? Would there even be an MTV to, in your words, bombard people with lack of talent?

 

[Bubblegum *sugarless*]

I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU: - There is no doubt that the Beatles greatly influenced the course of pop/rock music. Just about every band today owes them a debt - if not directly then through the generations as they influenced the next generation of musicians who influenced the next and the next right up to the present. So since music has been shaped by them. Your proposition would remove the Beatles from having shaped the early days of pop/rock. So what would music be like today without them? Would pop have even survived? Would there even be an MTV to, in your words, bombard people with lack of talent?

Geez...why not just ask "What would happen if Al Gore had never invented the internet??" (I am just joking) The thought is scary.

I think music would be darker...maybe heavier. Remember the Rolling Stones have been a huge influence. Also Elvis-influenced musicians might be more prominent. More Rockabilly rather than pop? Heavy metal might be stonger. Although, If ya asked Ozzy he'd say The Beatles were his #1 influence. The MTV question is a good one. I don't think there would be MTV if pop wasn't as popular as it is. It's a marketing driven media, as is most pop music.

Just my opinion. I still shudder at the thought of not listening to my White Album.

 

[Dillinger]

There have been a number of remixed Beatles songs? Anyone think they would have done them the remixed way if it was in their hands? ie - if they came along later rather then earlier?

 

[Dhalgren]

Are we saying...if they were born in the 1970's and came up new now...?

Or if we plucked them from the sixties and put them on a stage in their matching suits?...*smiles*


If you got the three remaining guys to do a show now...people would line up on the streets just to see a glimpse of that..

They just were so amazingly inovative for their time..they broke boundaries..and many many musicians today are so influenced by them..

I think the music world would be vastly different if they had never existed at all.

And remember the quality of the studio's equipment..they used only 4 tracks...


Hell..it takes 40 tracks to make Insync sound erm..well like they do.