Where is Gen X's 'Beatles?'

[QueerMike]

well thats whats wrong with most people today they dont like changes

Why should they? Most changes that impact one's life are generally bad things. Of course people will be standoff-ish of even the slightest change.

 

[Joker]

depends who those other 3 guys are

That...Is...AWESOME.

 

[Motown Marvel]

That...Is...AWESOME.

isn't it though?! i could watch that video every damn day and not get sick of it. the line up just blows my mind, its beyond ridiculous. its hilarious they have keith f**king richards on BASS all because they scored Clapton on guitar. brilliant.

 

[BMM]

Funny you should mention Michael Jackson. What do you think a Jackson Five reunion would be like, popularity wise?

Of course, they didn't play any instruments.

Good question. I'm not sure. Honestly, I think a Jackson Five reunion would sell, but I think a lot of attention would be focused on Michael Jackson and not necessarily in a good way.

 

[gap5ewl]

At this moment, I doubt there will ever be another Beatles. They were truly unique and different. I think the reason they were so huge and why there hasn't been ones like them is:

A) They created entirely different and new music with a broad, diverse message. Pop music at the time was just beginning to diversify and evolve. The Beatles were the "first" band for many different music genres. Forty years later, So much new type of music has come out that I really can't picture something revolutionary sounding and truly unique coming that has never been heard before (never say never I guess).

B) They became the poster boys for the social revolutions of the time. Much of the western world was changing and a lot of young people became active in the counterculture and what not. The Beatles music was the definitive soundtrack for the time and was heard by everyone from the generation. Today's youth is braindead and unless another social movement similar to the sixties comes, then I doubt will see a Beatles sequel

I guess the nineties came close with Nirvana in the grunge scene and Tupac in the rap scene. But these guys only reached god like status because of their deaths. Furthermore, their music was not nearly as diverse as the Beatles and others from the time was. Maybe if artists started to diversify themselves more and put some actual heart and conscience in their music (and creating something truly unique and different) then maybe we will see something similar to the Beatles.

 

[Poetic Chaos]

It's hard to ever know in the moment who is going to be remembered. MJ and Madonna were the last legends really and they debuted well over 20 years ago. I suppose Mariah Carey as well. But as for bands and rock music, I can see the Foo Fighters being recognized in the future. They've been such a solid band since the early 90's and half of their albums have won Best Rock Album so they have the critical acclaim.

 

[Joker]

I dont really understand the Foo Fighters popularity. When compared with Nirvana, they're not in the same league at all. In fact, Nirvana is 2 leagues ahead of them, playing in the newly built outer space arena against martians, and the Foo Fighters are still trying to forget when the league they were in was a "negro league" and full of shame. That's how big a difference there is there. Also, Learn To Fly is a terrible, terrible song.

 

[Eggyman]

Wow, Dirty Mac

Not seen that in a while Yer Blues is a fantastic song

 

[Joker]

Is there an Mp3 of that Dirty Mac performance anywhere?

 

[Motown Marvel]

Is there an Mp3 of that Dirty Mac performance anywhere?

im sure there is somewhere, but i dont have it. the performance came from the 1968 rolling stones rock and roll circus, which is available on DVD. it features acts from many other bands of the time, including the stones and the who. the program was delayed release on home video for decades because the stones were not happy by being out performed by the who, ha ha ha.

 

[Darknightnomis]

Seinfeld!

 

[terry78]

Everybody is too cynical and takes everything ironically these days for someone to really breakout. If someone similar to them were to be released now, they'd get nothing but harsh criticism for sounding like someone else. Also, the music that's really well done nowadays ironically never gets airplay or sells a lot. Unlike back then.

 

[moraldeficiency]

The problem is the when Beatles were out there was about 98% less choice in musical styles. Look how many genres and subgroups there are today compaired to back then. Simply put when you have less choices more people like quality of any kind, whether it fits their lives/styles or not.

Some people/groups that might qualify but only for their genres would be:

Tupac
Sublime
Nirvana
Rancid
Radiohead

 

[Ender Durden]

isn't it though?! i could watch that video every damn day and not get sick of it. the line up just blows my mind, its beyond ridiculous. its hilarious they have keith f**king richards on BASS all because they scored Clapton on guitar. brilliant.

replace mitchell with John Bonham and you got urself a goddamn deal.

and again i repeat

when it comes to rock music

not in terms of popularity so much, but in terms of quality and redefining music (well maybe just their music) MOST definitely. i dunno about anyone else but going from the Bends to Kid A seems like a bigger leap to me than Rubber Soul to Sgt. Peppers.


7 years ago or so i wouldve honestly said Incubus. their transition from Fungus Amongus to Morning View is beautiful, until the ugly head that is ACLOTM revealed its ugly head.

word.

 

[jaguarr]

Hannah Montana!!!!!






























































































jag

 

[QueerMike]

That...Is...AWESOME.

Yeah but Lenon and Jagger were a little to close in the begining for my liking. It kinda wierded the whole thing out for me.

 

[QueerMike]

At this moment, I doubt there will ever be another Beatles. They were truly unique and different. I think the reason they were so huge and why there hasn't been ones like them is:

A) They created entirely different and new music with a broad, diverse message. Pop music at the time was just beginning to diversify and evolve. The Beatles were the "first" band for many different music genres. Forty years later, So much new type of music has come out that I really can't picture something revolutionary sounding and truly unique coming that has never been heard before (never say never I guess).

B) They became the poster boys for the social revolutions of the time. Much of the western world was changing and a lot of young people became active in the counterculture and what not. The Beatles music was the definitive soundtrack for the time and was heard by everyone from the generation. Today's youth is braindead and unless another social movement similar to the sixties comes, then I doubt will see a Beatles sequel

I guess the nineties came close with Nirvana in the grunge scene and Tupac in the rap scene. But these guys only reached god like status because of their deaths. Furthermore, their music was not nearly as diverse as the Beatles and others from the time was. Maybe if artists started to diversify themselves more and put some actual heart and conscience in their music (and creating something truly unique and different) then maybe we will see something similar to the Beatles.

I think the Beatles popularity is largely due to the boom of television and media. Look at everything from that era: JFK, talk show hosts, designer drugs, the sexual revolution, Dustin Hoffman, the list goes on. All these things have been blown WAY OUT of proportion by the media and television. In reality, everything in our current world is here because of blown up realities and we are living in a world where EVERYTHING is overly exaggerated.

I am not here to preach against television and the media, we need them to advance. What we do need is a drastically reformed television and media outlet. One that doesn't send people on damned wild goose chases.

 

[Motown Marvel]

replace mitchell with John Bonham and you got urself a goddamn deal.

mitch mitchell is every bit as good a drummer as bonham. one could even rightfully argue he's better.

 

[Franklin Richards]

Close Thread.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

mitch mitchell is every bit as good a drummer as bonham. one could even rightfully argue he's better.

lol

 

[Raiden]

I dont really understand the Foo Fighters popularity. When compared with Nirvana, they're not in the same league at all. In fact, Nirvana is 2 leagues ahead of them, playing in the newly built outer space arena against martians, and the Foo Fighters are still trying to forget when the league they were in was a "negro league" and full of shame. That's how big a difference there is there. Also, Learn To Fly is a terrible, terrible song.

Well, I like Foo Fighter and while they are still not as popular as Nirvana during their heydays, they are still a great band. And besides, Nirvana was phenomenal when they broke out with "Nevermind", but they have been somewhat inconsistent since then. Songs like "Heart-shape box" and "Rape me" were just mediocre imo.

 

[QueerMike]

The problem is the when Beatles were out there was about 98% less choice in musical styles. Look how many genres and subgroups there are today compaired to back then. Simply put when you have less choices more people like quality of any kind, whether it fits their lives/styles or not.

Some people/groups that might qualify but only for their genres would be:

Tupac
Sublime
Nirvana
Rancid
Radiohead

So basically, what you're saying, is that The Beatles were one of the few choices back then and if people wanted music they had no choice but to listen to The Beatles. That sounds like torture, that's wrong(not by anyones fault though.)

It's one of my beliefs that the main reason The Beatles stand out so much is because, along with television and media, they are shielding the world from all the music prior to 1960. It's just like Kennedy too, he is the primary shield of todays people from the politicians of old. Kennedy is like the first president to smile. Forget the fact that he was one of the first to have to deal with the media moster.

The Beatles
JFK
The Super Bowl
20/20
Neil Armstrong
Marlyn Monroe

These are the grandaddies of the pop culture of today. Their day has just about come though. So who is next?

 

[jaguarr]

The Beatles
JFK
The Super Bowl
20/20
Neil Armstrong
Marlyn Monroe

These are the grandaddies of the pop culture of today. Their day has just about come though. So who is next?

Why has their day just about come? Time obviously has not lessened any of their accomplishments or impact upon our culture. Particularly when there are no real contenders to the throne that have come along and impacted our culture in ways so profound that they take away from the impact those people and things have had. Your list is also missing things like Elvis, Watergate, The Cold War, desegregation, the Vietnam War, the hippie movement, voting rights for women and a whole lot of other things.

jag

 

[moraldeficiency]

So basically, what you're saying, is that The Beatles were one of the few choices back then and if people wanted music they had no choice but to listen to The Beatles. That sounds like torture, that's wrong(not by anyones fault though.)

It's one of my beliefs that the main reason The Beatles stand out so much is because, along with television and media, they are shielding the world from all the music prior to 1960. It's just like Kennedy too, he is the primary shield of todays people from the politicians of old. Kennedy is like the first president to smile. Forget the fact that he was one of the first to have to deal with the media moster.

The Beatles
JFK
The Super Bowl
20/20
Neil Armstrong
Marlyn Monroe

These are the grandaddies of the pop culture of today. Their day has just about come though. So who is next?

I get what you're saying but consider this. In the beatles time there were simply less choices in music, that's a fact. Also you have the fact that the beatles were one of the first musical groups to use televised media and with far, far, far less things on television everyone that had a television at that time not only knew who the beatles were but had seen them play. Finally take into account that at their time they were pretty much the only major musical group to take a major political stance so they were galvanizing.

Put the beatles in our time when everyone's on TV, there's a million different forms of music to choose from and watch on TV (My TV has over 50 music channels alone), and everyone from the dixie chicks to System of a Down is preaching politics to the point of annoyance and yeah, they just don't have the impact.

They led the way in a great deal ways and changed music forever, but they also had the advantage of being the right band at the right time.

 

[jaguarr]

I get what you're saying but consider this. In the beatles time there were simply less choices in music, that's a fact. Also you have the fact that the beatles were one of the first musical groups to use televised media and with far, far, far less things on television everyone that had a television at that time not only knew who the beatles were but had seen them play. Finally take into account that at their time they were pretty much the only major musical group to take a major political stance so they were galvanizing.

Put the beatles in our time when everyone's on TV, there's a million different forms of music to choose from and watch on TV (My TV has over 50 music channels alone), and everyone from the dixie chicks to System of a Down is preaching politics to the point of annoyance and yeah, they just don't have the impact.

They led the way in a great deal ways and changed music forever, but they also had the advantage of being the right band at the right time.

Excellent observation; media saturation is incredible these days. There used to be only two or three channels at most in most homes, and the rock and roll industry was just starting to really come about. The Beatles had the advantage of not a whole lot else going on in an area they were innovating in musically, and there really wasn't much on television to compete with them when they finally managed to break out and get themselves on TV.

These days, there are so many bands and artists on the scene, and there are so many different channels on television, radio and even the internet that the saturation is overwhelming. It all becomes "noise" and a lot of quality artists, musicians, writers and so forth get overlooked because there are so many other people out there they are competing against and they're all getting various levels of media coverage whether that's television, radio, print, the internet or what have you. It's much, much harder to stand out in this day and age; something the Beatles never had to contend with.

jag