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

I'm curious about this too. I'd like a response to this pressing question.

 

I figured someone would try this. But I only quickly named a handful out of many (I could easily have taken up 10 pages here listing others). Fact is, there was a time when something like The Exorcist actually appalled and frightened people, instead of now when they laugh at it. Kids today see more horrors in their cafeterias at achool with crazed fellow students going on a shooting massacre; thus, they are not bothered by the idea of an innocent little girl possessed by a demon. The TV show ALL IN THE FAMILY was indisputably a groundbreaker. A film like JAWS took the world by storm, back in the days when you could see a miovie and have it stay with you after you actually walked out of the theater.

 

Are you serious???

If so seek professional help!

 

The Beatles thing has been replicated 100x over. They were the first boy band or manufactured product that actually sold. The experiment part with them however was corrected for future iterations...meaning subsequent products would be devoid of free will and any control. They wanted total puppets rather than ones doing their own thing. Nsync or One Direction has sold way more product during their active years than the Beatles could have ever imagined, and the children are every bit as infatuated with them as those of the Beatles era. The difference is we are now a disposable society.
The Beatles were actual musicians so their music has been preserved much better.

 

Miller died in 1944. I guess it depends what your definition of "viable" is.
Come on, we all know that in this information age there is an incredible amount of media available, all nicely packaged...in black and white, in color, etc etc. If folks don't seek out the package, surf through the television and they still can stumble on The Three Stooges. Nobody is missing out on this sort of stuff. This is outside of the truly cultural phenomenon of the thread topic.

 

No, this is the most ridiculous thing I've read on a music forum.

 

Star Wars, 1977.

 

Well, that's big, but MTV had a bigger impact...right up to the point of ditching music and introducing us to the Real World, which is now the structured format for most all popular television.

 

At least you get an "A" for effort.

 

No. The internet is the closest thing that we have had as a phenomenon like The Beatles.

 

The 'No' in your post makes no sense. I also thought this thread was about debate? If you don't say why you disagree or back it up with something, your contribution is completely pointless. Do you really think 1957-1963 was the most creative period in pop history?

 

So will Yoko break up the Internet too? Arnie

 

I never bought an 'innernet' T-shirt, doll, or 'knick-knack'.
I'm also thinking of full-on acceptance of an 'art-maker' or makers.
I would assume most of us believe The Beatles went BEYOND Elvis, and, the closest thing previous to their success was Charlie Chaplin.

 

Really? The Beatles are bigger than Jesus, and now the Internet too?
Jesus I get, the Internet isnt a bobble head, it's the most revolutionary for of free and open communication exchange since the printing press.
If the Beatles were a single toy on a shelf, the Internet is a Walmart store you bought that toy from.

 

The perfect response. Thank you.


By the way, my favorite comedians are The Marx Brothers with the Paramount films being best. Why? Because they feature four of them. Just like.......

 

I agree Jim but I welcome the "new" but 99.9 times out of a hundred it bores the pants off me because I have heard it ALL before (apart from the little twists that a modern artist might put on it).

 

You make a couple good points, but miss the boat on others.

First of all the Beatles were not a "boy band". They were a rock/pop group.

Secondly you say "children were very bit as infatuated by them" in reference to Nsync and One Direction. But the Beatles infatuated more than just "the children". Some serious musical scholars and adults were praising the Beatles. I don't see much of that for these later "boy bands".

I was making the point the other day after reading something where one of the members of One Direction was making a comment that they were as popular as the Beatles and how ridiculous that statement was. I know a few One Direction songs, but I don't know the names of any of the members of the band. Most of my peers (I'm 56) wouldn't even know any of the songs, much less any of the names of group members. In 1964 it was quite likely that even those who weren't into the music knew the names John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr. The Beatles were more than just a musical phenomenon, they were a cultural one as well. The same has never been true for any of these boy bands.

And lastly I want to add (unrelated to the post I quoted) that I think the whole "Kennedy" thing has been overstated. The Beatles exploded in England well before JFK was killed and the path to stardom in the US was already being laid. I think the Beatles would have been huge in the US regardless of whether Kennedy was assassinated or not.

 

I was half-joking but I'm talking about the far reaching social revolution that was created by the Beatles and what they represented. They affectected millions, billions of people all across the globe in a short space of time. Toddlers loved them, grannies loved them, politiciens, film stars, factory workers,... it was a very profound social revolution and they spearheaded it. The only thing that I can think of that has been that extensive in its influence is...punk? Nah. Star Wars? Nah. Michael Jackson! Getting close. No... it was those friendly enemies Gates/Jobs!

 

The missing argument; The Beatles (like The Band a few years later) were a seasoned and fully formed band when they really became famous; their in-jokes, interplay and communications between them were original, refreshing and totally intuitive. just look at their interviews around 1964 and you see four guys totally at ease with themselves and each other, brimming with enthousiasm and ambition!

 

The main reason is there will never be a musician as awesome as John Lennon

 

As a side thought, I watched Magical Mystery Tour (the film) for the first time last night. It occured to me that that project had the potential to singlehandedly derail the "phenomenon"!

How the Beatles survived that travesty is quite amazing. (Come to think of it, in my case, it's because I never saw it until their place was secure.)

 

I was around back then. Unfortunately there's no parallel universe in which JFK wasn't shot so you can't really prove it either way. But I think the assassination-Beatles link is nonsense.

 

Westlife said the same when one of their songs hit No 1 and broke a Beatles record. I'm not anti-pop, but these kids make tits of themselves when they say things like that.

 

I thought so for awhile also.

Then I remembered that I thought they were boring, a few of my friends did (although many jumped on the bandwagon), and that Garth Brooks and gangsta rap were just as big during the same time period.

looking back, Garth Brooks gave a lot more to the art of songwriting and melody than Nirvana did, and I'm saying this as a fan of rock over country in general.

 

There's a LOT LESS of us folks born in the 1970's (who were teens when Nirvana ruled) than those born in the late 40's through mid 60's.

Our generation has been dubbed the "Baby Busters" for good reason. We bought music like crazy, but there wasn't as many of us.

we couldn't sustain the music industry with our limited number of loyal foot soliders, so our older boomer brethren did by trading in their vinyl/8 track/cassettes for CD.

Many rockers will tell their children about grunge and Nirvana - but I always tell my daughter about New Jack Swing and Country music also.