6 reasons a Beatles-like phenomenon can't happen again

Of course the number was made up! They didn't hand count every person in the street!

 

popularity, album sales, chart positions don't lie...The Beatles were a phenomenon no matter how one tries to dispute it...case closed!

 

What's that? I liked Guns n Roses, and I know some of their most popular songs. I've never heard of "My Michelle" though.

Interesting revelation about your name. Is that why the Beatles' well-known classic bugs you, because you're sensitive to it by your name? A lot of babies were named "Michelle" because of the Beatles classic... were you?

 

I'm the first to concede that The Beatles' timing was perfect, and a vital ingredient to their success -- but any argument that they became popular ONLY because of the timing is utter nonsense. After all is said and done, it comes down to the MUSIC, which is the determining factor once you ignore all the other glitz and polish. Their music was exceptionally great, and it speaks for itself both in the early 1960s, and even now in 2015 to newer generations of fans who were born 30 years after they broke up! If The Beatles' success was simply the result of "good timing", they would have faded out rather quickly, and their music wouldn't be classic and taught in music classes, nor would it endure generation after generation.

Nope. Because teens and 20-somethings continue to be rabid Beatles fans today and go to Beatlefests and McCartney concerts -- and they were certainly not among the 1964 crowd who mobbed JFK Airport...

 

People can say this all they like, but it does not change the fact that Lennon and McCartney wrote their own music, and they also called a lot of their own shots, even in the earliest days... such as telling producer George Martin they were not going to release the non-original "How Do You Do It" for their single, as they maintained they were going to do their own original material. That was rather ballsy from a brand new group who'd never made their first record yet. Today's boy bands are completely unoriginal.

I would also put it out there that the whole business of "wearing matching suits and cleaning up" had been unproven at that time. The Beatles already had a huge following as punks wearing leather, and they were already tremendous in Germany and at the Cavern in England; now to suddenly swap all this for suits and a cleaner exterior was taking a huge RISK, actually. Sure, today we know that boy bands who "clean up" are in solid with the girls -- but back in 1962 it was just the opposite, because the so-called "boy band" had not yet even been invented!

 

You need to read "Tune In". The historical timeline indicates that Beatlemania didn't happen until the boys adopted the suits,. The "Pre-Fab Four" knew what they were doing, they consciously ceased being punks in leather because they knew that being a "Boy Band" would result in more gigs and a signing to a record company. Before the suits and skinny ties, they were a local phenomena that got gigs from hell in Hamburg. Not That There's Anything Wrong With That!

 

There's one reason: Simon Cowell.

 

The early 6o's equivalent of Boy Band are the Frankies, the Bobbys and the Tommys,
The Beatles played, wrote and sang their own material. They also chose their covers of Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Perkins and Holly etc
What Boy Band from the New Kids era where the term originated did all this? Zero. The Boy Bands are exactly like the pre Beatles/Dylan era. of Idolmaker hit factories. There was palatable relief, from the start, that a real rock n roll band had finally reemerged.
Oh..the suits, the suits, the suits. It was common among all.
At least the Beatles can claim of even having a leather, pre punk, metal fashion style.
This cannot be said of peers, Beach Boys, Rolling Stones, DC5 and all the others.
One more thing. There is this weird, conspiracy theory that there wasn't a Beatles. Played by various actors assembled by a gov't agents, think tanks and a barrage of musicians and songwriters.
Talk about revisionist hatred. That takes the cake to some psychotic cafeteria.
Sorry everybody but the Fabs pulled it all off and closed their own body of work.
All this makes me despise Lennon's assassin even more.
If anyone could wither these idiotic reactionary theories, it's John.

 

Huge oversimplification, but yes, that odious man is a factor.

 

"Beatlemania" didn't "happen". It grew.
"Beatlemania" was just the tipping point of the rabid fandom that began in Liverpool when they returned from their first Hamburg stint (Hey I got that from "Tune In"). No, the suits didn't have too awful much to do with it. Sorry!

Good luck trying to impose your "sense of scale" on the hundreds of gazillion million batillion Beatle fans out there.
I've got a better chance of educating the hoi polloi on exactly what a boy band is than you have of that

 

No, John would be the first to denounce the Beatles adoption of suits and ties and short performances of very limited song lists as selling out. This is the guy who wrote "Gimme Some Truth" after all. This is the guy who wrote "I don't believe in Beatles". And again, it is not 'revisionist hatred', it's a close reading of the historical events. And again, there's nothing wrong with that. It's simply the nature of being a performing musician.

 

We do love our myths, don't we?

 

I own and have read "Tune In". Even without consulting that book we all know that Beatlemania did not transpire until after they'd worn the suits, and the term 'Beatlemania' was not even coined until 1963. But it does not negate anything I've said in my other post... yes it all worked out well in the end, but at the time that the punky, rougher, leather-clad Beatles changed over to suits, they did already have quite a fanbase already established, and it ran a risk of alienating them. It turned out to be a risk which paid off, but we know this now; they had NO IDEA in 1962 that they would wind up becoming a world phenomenon, even in their wildest dreams.

And let's not forget that Beatlemania was every bit as much about the MUSIC as it was the presentation. Let me scratch that -- it was MORE about the music than anything else. With these so-called "boy bands" today, it's about the whole ambience and look and pretty qualities of the boys; the music is completely secondary and interchangeable.

 

Absolutely!
They are the greatest aren't they?
No question 'bout it.

 

A new myth has developed: that The Beatles were some kind of a "boy band", or a "template for a boy band". And this is a myth that has only been developed in fairly recent times, with the advent of the modern, true "boy bands". There was no such thing or name in 1962-1963. I am all too aware that you subscribe to this notion and love this particular new myth ... but not all of us do.

 

Lennon was in his dream is over stage. Later he confessed to buying every Bootleg he could find.
Seriously, you don't believe Lennon wouldn't defend his band's place in history?
He didn't seem to mind crushing on The Stones, ELO, and The Who when compared.
Imagine a journalist comparing the group to N'SYNC or One Direction
Yikes!

 

I'm sure John would defend his band's place in history. But he'd have no time for Beatleidolators. Of course, John's no saint, he'd be the first to point that out.

 

John Lennon wore many hats. He also often said he was a big Beatles Fan himself. (When Mark Lapidos of Beatlefest approached Lennon in 1974 for the first Beatles Convention, John remarked: "I'm all for it, I'm a Beatles Fan too!").

 

And here is one of those hats:



Arnie

 

Nice pic. But I hope you got my message as well. In fact, Nilsson was with Lennon in a hotel just like this, the day John told Mark Lapidos "I'm all for it, I'm a Beatles Fan too!".

 

yeah and teens and 20-somethings continue to go to Motley Crue shows and Kiss shows and Iron Maiden shows, Alice Cooper shows, Black Sabbath shows, weird al shows, Slayer shows ect...

 

they didn't count anybody they just said Oh, that is 300,000 people when in reality it was only a few thousand ....

 

Yeah, all done with mirrors.