PSB 8th in hit singles list

Message

dVTB · #91 Post by **dVTB** » Tue 20 Sep 2005, 4:44 pm

Comparing the Beatles with manufactured music by for instance the Spice Girls is totally insane. Not only did the Beatles write their own songs, also most of the Spice Girls tracks have already been forgotten.

The fact that the Beatles knew about marketing to sell records, doesn't necessarily put them into one league with prefab acts like the Spice Girls. If you take the technical possibilities into consideration, the Beatles made music in many different styles, from plain rock to melodic ballads, pop songs and psychedelic tracks.

I also find it weird that people who don't like the Beatles at all, can be Pet Shop Boys fans. What Pet Shop Boys did from 1985 until today has a lot in common with what the Beatles did in the 60's: writing unforgettable songs. Tennant/Lowe stepped into the footsteps of Lennon/McCartney.

Dreamcatcher2003 · Tue 20 Sep 2005, 4:52 pm

jamie1978 wrote:
Eldritch wrote:The Beatles very much created pop music as we know it. To deny that is just being contrary or a bit thick. For further info read Ian McDonald's Revolution In The Head.

And I don't even like The Beatles much.
Thank you. The voice of reason.

To compare the Beatles to Take That is going from the sublime to the ridiculous.

And comparing Beatles to Spice Girls, in whatever form it may be, deserves to be the most laughable thing on earth, and anyone who argues in favour of that argument deserves to be the poorest laughing stock in the world as we come to know, from whatever aspect you approach to the subject matter.

A profound expert in pop music can pen an encylopedia on the absurdity of the notion but it just suffices to say for the time being that the Beatles had their very heart in it while the Spice Girls had only their naked asses and stupid, shallow brains and couldn't holde a single/ one-second tune even if their lives depended on it. I don't care about Beatles songs; change the station whenever a Beatles tune emits from the radio but never dared to disparage or disrespect their songwriting, lyrical emotion and the pleasure they obviously had in what they were doing with intelligence, and the fact that they almost changed the world, some concepts that Spice Girls, Take That, S/W/A, and, yes, even Kylie Minogue aren't even capable of imagining in their wildest dreams. Nonsense in a nutshell...

popfreak · #93 Post by **popfreak** » Tue 20 Sep 2005, 5:19 pm

As much as i love the beatles i do agree with zeus, they were heavily manufactured by epstien.

And as for the importance of songwriting in this argument
Didn't the beatles get signed on the strength of their live gigs at the cavern and gigs in berlin, both of which consisted of covers of 50's rock 'n' roll tunes and Rhythm & blues.
I don't think there song writing came to be until they where signed. I am sure it was George martin that got them to perform their own songs after they performed covers for the run through of a proposed first single.

I think my history is right

jamie1978 · #94 Post by **jamie1978** » Tue 20 Sep 2005, 5:19 pm

Zeus On The Loose wrote:
The fact that they created the whole Pop phenomenon (though that could be said about Elivs who predates them for a good few years) doesn't mean that they were the best band ever or that their tunes were actually good in proper terms. They were of course, fantastic pop singles because the sold tonnes but I don't rate the band as half as influential musically as they were as far as promotion, imagery etc. went so I don't agree that the PSB wouldn't have existed without the Beatles, whereas Madonna or the Spice Girls - acts that image, gimmicks and publicity stunts were more important than the actual tunes - probably wouldn't have.

The Beatles probably have been surpassed today, but that is hardly the point, and it is an unfair comparison.

You have to compare their songs with what else was around at the time, and in that sense, The Beatles were a musical revolution. Like nothing heard or seen before. Elvis was a tiresome crooner by comparison, and The Beatles US invasion rapidly saw his displacement as the leading figure in popular music.

Nothing as radical as The Beatles has happened in popular music before or since, and I doubt it ever will. And, for the record, I rate their songwriting very highly indeed. They wrote perfect pop songs.

jamie1978 · #95 Post by **jamie1978** » Tue 20 Sep 2005, 5:20 pm

popfreak wrote:As much as i love the beatles i do agree with zeus, they were heavily manufactured by epstien.

I think my history is right

Lennon/McCartney wrote the songs - how exactly are you defining 'manufactured'?

popfreak · #96 Post by **popfreak** » Tue 20 Sep 2005, 5:41 pm

jamie1978 wrote:
popfreak wrote:As much as i love the beatles i do agree with zeus, they were heavily manufactured by epstien.

I think my history is right
Lennon/McCartney wrote the songs - how exactly are you defining 'manufactured'?

I mean't that just because you wrote the songs you don't always have control of the band and the way it is percieved or promoted.
in this case Epstien was the manufacturer.

Zeus On The Loose · Tue 20 Sep 2005, 5:42 pm

I would say the rise of synths and samplers, synth pop and dance music was as revolutionary, if not more, than the Beatles. Punk also was.

They were somewhat manufactured if you consider that their manager kicked one of the original members out because he was minging! Come to think of it, one of the original Spice Girls was kicked out by the manager for the exact same reason.

They had a manager that called all the shots and bossed them around and was responsible for everything except writing the tunes and writing the records doesn't necessarily mean they were not manufactured. Take That were and Gary wrote all of their tunes.

Butters · #98 Post by **Butters** » Tue 20 Sep 2005, 6:22 pm

Can somebody explain what was so great about the songwriting of Lennon & McCartney? What makes Let it be better than Wannabe?

(Once again I find myself agreeing with Zeus in a non-political issue...)

Dipso · #99 Post by **Dipso** » Tue 20 Sep 2005, 6:33 pm

My old maths teacher is on Mastermind tonight (famous UK quiz show). His specialised subject is Status Quo! How very bizarre.

Zeus On The Loose · Tue 20 Sep 2005, 6:33 pm

Here's a list of possible answers:

a.Let It Be was self-written, Wannabe was only co-written

b.It's an older tune so it has to be better

c.Everyone considers them to be the best pop writers ever so they have to be

d.The Beatles were men, the Spice Girls were ahem, girls so the Beatles were allowed to sell sex without being called sluts (see dreamcatcher's chauvinistic opinion on the matter)

e.It's a ballad so it's real music and 'from the heart'

f.People who liked it at the time are now 50 and want to hear it out of nostalgia, people who liked Wannabe are not old enough to so the former is a classic and the latter is forgotten

g.One of the Beatles was murdered, unfortunately all the efforts to kidnapp the Baby Becks have been unsuccessful

Janet Street-Porter · Tue 20 Sep 2005, 7:07 pm

Zeus On The Loose wrote:They had a manager that called all the shots and bossed them around and was responsible for everything except writing the tunes and writing the records doesn't necessarily mean they were not manufactured. Take That were and Gary wrote all of their tunes.

But all groups depend on their manager/producer/session musos/record company so by your logic every group is manufactured. I love Brian Epstein just as I love George Martin and dear old Parlophone but The Beatles were far more than the sum of their parts.

I don't have a problem with manufactured pop but I always found The Spice Girls to be appealing solely to an audience of tweenies and drag queens. I think five members is far too many for a girl group anyway and don't really 'get' Girls Aloud for similar reasons although in their case they are appealing to teenage slappers and the gayers in general.

Zeus On The Loose · Tue 20 Sep 2005, 7:13 pm

50-odd million albums sales in 4 years couldn't have been all bought by 'tweenies and drag queens', can they? Claiming that was their audience is like saying the Beatles only appealed to 'tweenies and coal miners'

dVTB · #103 Post by **dVTB** » Tue 20 Sep 2005, 7:25 pm

http://www.polyhex.com/music/singles/no1s/no1ayear.php
Nuff said.

Now please stop this ridiculous Spice Girls vs Beatles comparison.

Zeus On The Loose · Tue 20 Sep 2005, 7:32 pm

http://www.polyhex.com/music/singles/no1s/no1syear.php

Ho-hum. Westlife at #4, hmm....

BTW, where's Kylie? This table is inaccurate.

ArseSpanker · #105 Post by **ArseSpanker** » Tue 20 Sep 2005, 7:40 pm

I can't be bothered to read this thread. Can someone summerize for me please?

I gather we're discussing whether the Beatles are more valid than today's 'disposable' pop.

The answer is: Of course not and yes they probably had a comparable audience to that of said 'disposable' pop acts.

Why are the Beatles considered more important?

Probably because they pushed the boundary of what was thought to be acceptable 'product' for their demographic, unlike todays pop acts who are designed to strictly adhere to their demographic's perceived taste. Even when they progress to become more 'mature' these days it is normally an attempt by record label and management to carry on squeezing every last drop out of the poor exploited cashcow boyband. The Beatles were leading rather than following.

Objectively this doesn't make the Beatles better, although it may make them culturally more relevant. The Beatles are part of middle class culture. They are IMPORTANT!!! Sacred, even.

Which we all know is rubbish cultural elitism.

But then, I may have misunderstood the topic.

Ps. I presume Zeus was reffering to drummer Pete Best being sacked for being 'minging'. The same Pete Best replaced by the ever so photogenic Ringo Starr, yeah?