Seaking Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 A lot of The Beatles' early fame was due to them being good looking, charming etc. and all their hit songs back then were just catchy pop numbers with similar lyrical themes to 1D (and many, many other pop bands). Yet, The Beatles are regarded as one of (if not) the best bands in history. Sure, they made some amazing work that was very different and experimental later on but people always seem to overlook their early work when slagging off the 'shit mainstream music of today'. Jesus H Christ Nuggets. I made this argument in school last year. My face nearly got torn off by fucking tard nuggets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HannahG123 Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 Anyway, muse kicked ass and I can't wait to see them live. They gave it everything they had (a little too much maybe ) and there was a hell of a lot of pressure on them as well as unfamiliar setting (playback, billions of viewers, monster choir behind them, new song, haven't played in a year) so well done Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 Radiohead released a good song which they not only wrote themselves, but performed reasonably well themselves. It's so much more justified. What the hell is a "good song"? You're missing the point. If you're gonna judge artists from how hard they work to be where they are, why draw a line with produced pop bands? Shouldn't the same rule apply to every band? Radiohead worked a lot less than other bands from the same era but still became more famous. Therefore they are for example less worthy of playing at certain event. Your logic, not mine. The point Hannah makes is that the primary reason some acts are famous is their image, as opposed to a secondary or lesser reason as to why they're famous. And my point is that every big band works hard on their image. The only reason that they're not primarily as famous because of their image as of their music is simply because they're not doing a good enough job at it. Punk is a good example of where the image>the music. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will_ Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 A lot of The Beatles' early fame was due to them being good looking, charming etc. and all their hit songs back then were just catchy pop numbers with similar lyrical themes to 1D (and many, many other pop bands). Yet, The Beatles are regarded as one of (if not) the best bands in history. Sure, they made some amazing work that was very different and experimental later on but people always seem to overlook their early work when slagging off the 'shit mainstream music of today'. Times have changed though. They might've made music like that but they got big off of their own back, not off a mainstream talent show Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seaking Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 Times have changed though. They might've made music like that but they got big off of their own back, not off a mainstream talent show So because they came from a talent show that makes them less ... talented? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hopix Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 Did they write Creep though? The chord progression was taken from another song. They have credited other people as the writers. Considering they use that same progression for the entire song. Quite a unique progression too if I remember correctly. So they only wrote parts of the song? I never knew it was 'stolen,' even if it was, Radiohead put more effort and heart into what they did than 1D ever will. And all music is ripped off from somewhere else anyway, it's known as being inspired. Jesus H Christ Nuggets. I made this argument in school last year. My face nearly got torn off by fucking tard nuggets. Your argument has a point, but The Beatles still are most recognized and acclaimed for writing good pop music more than anything else imo, which not only inspired generations of music to come but was synonymous to a revolution etc. More than 1D will ever achieve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 Times have changed though. They might've made music like that but they got big off of their own back, not off a mainstream talent show I like how you put the word "mainstream" in there as if it matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 I never knew it was 'stolen,' even if it was, Radiohead put more effort and heart into what they did than 1D ever will. And all music is ripped off from somewhere else anyway, it's known as being inspired. Your argument has a point, but The Beatles still are most recognized and acclaimed for writing good pop music more than anything else imo, which not only inspired generations of music to come but was synonymous to a revolution etc. More than 1D will ever achieve. ie "you have a point, but The Beatles did it better" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vlodrak Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 Off topic but you can't disregard the entire late 60s Beatles work as "Sure they did some experimenting and it was cool" Those albums had unspeakably large influence on basically anything you'll hear today. I'm not condoning hate on one direction, whatever gets you through the night, but you *cannot* compare their careers to the Beatles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarrieB Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 Anyway, muse kicked ass and I can't wait to see them live. They gave it everything they had (a little too much maybe ) and there was a hell of a lot of pressure on them as well as unfamiliar setting (playback, billions of viewers, monster choir behind them, new song, haven't played in a year) so well done Yes indeed. Love them to bits! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 Off topic but you can't disregard the entire late 60s Beatles work as "Sure they did some experimenting and it was cool" Those albums had unspeakably large influence on basically anything you'll hear today. I'm not condoning hate on one direction, whatever gets you through the night, but you *cannot* compare their careers to the Beatles. We're comparing The Beatles early career with One Directions early career though. It would be unfair to compare The Beatles latter years to the future of One Direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jobby Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 Off topic but you can't disregard the entire late 60s Beatles work as "Sure they did some experimenting and it was cool" Those albums had unspeakably large influence on basically anything you'll hear today. I'm not condoning hate on one direction, whatever gets you through the night, but you *cannot* compare their careers to the Beatles. I compared their career/musical position/music to the early Beatles work. I said they later went on to do some completely different and amazing music that was revolutionary. Edit: Sippe beat me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seaking Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 I never knew it was 'stolen,' even if it was, Radiohead put more effort and heart into what they did than 1D ever will. And all music is ripped off from somewhere else anyway, it's known as being inspired. Hardly stolen. They credited their source. Your argument has a point, but The Beatles still are most recognized and acclaimed for writing good pop music more than anything else imo, which not only inspired generations of music to come but was synonymous to a revolution etc. More than 1D will ever achieve. Who knows, maybe 1D will inspire a generation of singers as well. I doubt they can have the effect that The Beatles had but still. The Beatles were great at marketing. So are One Direction. They are very similar, just in different generations with different influences. They are partially responsible (people claim that Queen's 1975 Bohemian Rhapsody video is the first though) for creating the music video. They used to do 30 second video promos before anyone else. 1D made a movie about their music. Similar. Just taken a step further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will_ Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 So because they came from a talent show that makes them less ... talented? No, but it does mean they got elevated to big heights from it, whereas the Beatles did it themselves. Big difference, I highly doubt 1D would ever have got to where they are now if they hadn't been on it I like how you put the word "mainstream" in there as if it matters. wel i fort it shud be put ther u no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 whereas the Beatles did it themselves. No they didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seaking Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 No, but it does mean they got elevated to big heights from it, whereas the Beatles did it themselves. Big difference, I highly doubt 1D would ever have got to where they are now if they hadn't been on it The Beatles had a marketing team and a label and they helped promote them. Similar to what 1D did. They took different paths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vlodrak Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 Oops sorry I sorta skim read that Yeah I see your point, although I do think that One Direction would be taken a lot more seriously if all their catchy pop numbers were self-written (I know this was discussed earlier as well but it's important that at least *someone* in the band is writing shit, y'know) But anyway Muse were fucking awesome tonight and I cannot wait to see them really get into it in a personal concert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hopix Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 What the hell is a "good song"? You're missing the point. If you're gonna judge artists from how hard they work to be where they are, why draw a line with produced pop bands? Shouldn't the same rule apply to every band? Radiohead worked a lot less than other bands from the same era but still became more famous. Therefore they are for example less worthy of playing at certain event. Your logic, not mine. And my point is that every big band works hard on their image. The only reason that they're not primarily as famous because of their image as of their music is simply because they're not doing a good enough job at it. Punk is a good example of where the image>the music. By good song, I do of course mean 'in my opinion,' forgive me for not spelling out to you that it was an opinion. Also in my opinion, Radiohead doing what you claim they did is still putting in more effort than productized acts such as JB etc. So to me, they deserve fame more because to me they have put more effort in. They got noticed off their own backs, and built themselves up for there, obviously they had some external help (promoters etc), but no where near the same amount as 1D and shit. And in response to your latter point, I think it's more to do with the fanbase you acquire, some people are shallow and only care about appearances, whilst others actually like an act for the music they make. Anyway, fun debate, going to bed, its 2am here, LOL. Catch you guys later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kueller Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 Jesus H Christ Nuggets. I made this argument in school last year. My face nearly got torn off by fucking tard nuggets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seaking Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 By good song, I do of course mean 'in my opinion,' forgive me for not spelling out to you that it was an opinion. Also in my opinion, Radiohead doing what you claim they did is still putting in more effort than productized acts such as JB etc. So to me, they deserve fame more because to me they have put more effort in. They got noticed off their own backs, and built themselves up for there, obviously they had some external help (promoters etc), but no where near the same amount as 1D and shit. And in response to your latter point, I think it's more to do with the fanbase you acquire, some people are shallow and only care about appearances, whilst others actually like an act for the music they make. The only thing you can say about Radiohead getting noticed is it definitely wasn't because of their looks. Bieber has co-written many of his songs. To say JB or 1D didn't do work is ridiculous. The 1D fanbase thinks they are great because of their music as well. They will say it's some of the greatest music ever. In my opinion (which also happens to be reality) they are wrong but still. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 By good song, I do of course mean 'in my opinion,' forgive me for not spelling out to you that it was an opinion. Also in my opinion, Radiohead doing what you claim they did is still putting in more effort than productized acts such as JB etc. So to me, they deserve fame more because to me they have put more effort in. They got noticed off their own backs, and built themselves up for there, obviously they had some external help (promoters etc), but no where near the same amount as 1D and shit. And in response to your latter point, I think it's more to do with the fanbase you acquire, some people are shallow and only care about appearances, whilst others actually like an act for the music they make. Anyway, fun debate, going to bed, its 2am here, LOL. Catch you guys later. You're still missing the point. I know Radiohead work harder with their music than some commercial pop acts. I'm saying that this rule would apply to all other bands too. You can't just use it as a way to disregard pop acts and then let everyone else pass. If one pop band isn't deserving of performing on the closing ceremony because of the work they have(or haven't) put down on being where they are, so should all other bands. Some people are shallow and only care about appearance....does in no way respond to my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seaking Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 I lol'ed. There are officially too many arguments in one thread. Cannot keep track of them all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jobby Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 I love the smell of derailed thread in the morning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kueller Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 I love the smell of derailed thread in the morning. I would too if it wasn't late afternoon here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seaking Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 I love the smell of derailed thread in the morning. It's a shame to consider this a derailed thread. It was a definitely an interesting conversation. Fun to be a part of, plus you learn a little. I would too if it wasn't late afternoon here. Pff, 9pm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.