RonnieTodger Posted 21 March 2012 Share Posted 21 March 2012 One Direction are the first British act to have a #1 debut album in the US and 4 music have claimed they are officially better than The Beatles. It's this sort of shit that makes me hate modern day music. 5 mediocre teenagers singing and dancing to a backing track compared to the biggest band of all time. I'm reading too much into a headline, I know, but it winds me up. They didn't mention that One Direction were on TV in the US for 10 weeks due to the X Factor, so they already had plenty of media exposure. Congratulations to them, but **** 4 music for a headline like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted 21 March 2012 Share Posted 21 March 2012 This just proves, 'Breaking America' means fuck all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScouseFox Posted 21 March 2012 Share Posted 21 March 2012 This just proves, 'Breaking America' means fuck all. Breaking America = $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted 21 March 2012 Share Posted 21 March 2012 Breaking America = $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ True, I meant in regards of talent though. Or lack of should I say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScouseFox Posted 21 March 2012 Share Posted 21 March 2012 True, I meant in regards of talent though. Oh right. Well debatable but in the case of this thread title, yeah. Americans are weird though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonlcfc1990 Posted 21 March 2012 Share Posted 21 March 2012 It winds me up! The beatles will never ever be "Bettered" the Beatles conquered the world when some of it hadn't even heard music before! Apparently these boys are talented.... "talent" Talent?? JOHN LENNON HAD MORE TALENT IN HIS LEFT BOLLOCK THAN THE WHOLE MUSICAL COLLECTION OF 2000 to 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purpleronnie Posted 21 March 2012 Share Posted 21 March 2012 The internet wasn't around in the 60's- without social networking one direction wouldn't have broken America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox92 Posted 21 March 2012 Share Posted 21 March 2012 Ridiculous. They are never better than The Beatles. Winds me up. The Beatles changed music. First ever band to include guitar feedback, some of the first metal songs (Helter Skelter, I want you she's so heavy etc). Also, and from someone who plays guitar and other instruments, they wrote their own music!! Respect as well, for that! Groups like one direction don't write their own music and cannot even play instruments. Most of their fans, if not all, are girls. I can comment on more... It winds me up when people say groups like one direction are better than Beatles, Kinks, Who, Marc Bolan, Bowie, Rolling Stones etc And I'll edit. I respect bands like Beatles, Kinks, Who, Marc Bolan, Bowie, Rolling Stones more, because, they did write their own music, they worked from the bottom and did not get "fame" from a talent contest, and they played instruments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackirius Posted 21 March 2012 Share Posted 21 March 2012 And i think the Beatles were shit... Music taste changes with the generations... Just to say one direction are shit aswell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SOCCERROO FOX Posted 21 March 2012 Share Posted 21 March 2012 The internet wasn't around in the 60's- without social networking one direction wouldn't have broken America. One direction wouldn't be around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purpleronnie Posted 21 March 2012 Share Posted 21 March 2012 One direction wouldn't be around. Pardon me squire whilst I proceed to do this:- booooooo internet boooooooo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 21 March 2012 Share Posted 21 March 2012 Being the first British group to have a debut album make No1 in America doesnt mean they are better than the Beatles and nobody is suggesting that it does. All it means is that you don't have to sell as many records any more to get to No1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonnieTodger Posted 21 March 2012 Author Share Posted 21 March 2012 I'm glad everyone feels the same. Some respect for this country's musical taste has been restored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trav Le Bleu Posted 21 March 2012 Share Posted 21 March 2012 The Beatles are 100x better than One Direction. Having said that, many, many bands are better than The Beatles. There, I said it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamN Posted 22 March 2012 Share Posted 22 March 2012 Love how people get so wound up about things like this. Who gives a shit, really? If you don't like modern pop music then listen to something that you do like instead. And if you're stupid enough to tar all modern music with the same brush as manufactured pop acts marketed towards 13 year old girls, then I guess it sucks to be you, because you're missing out on a tonne of great stuff! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocket-Ron Posted 22 March 2012 Share Posted 22 March 2012 Come on people. This was a comment made on 4 music. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozleicester Posted 22 March 2012 Share Posted 22 March 2012 To be fair, The Beatles from 62-65 were four boys singing pop music, the screaming fans didnt have Twitter and facebook, they had another new thing... TV, but it was the same driving force, hormonal teenage girls. They were packaged by their record company and by Epstein, they were a commercial tool and you could buy everything from dolls, to lunch boxes, to wigs, all carrying "The Beatles" seal of approval and guaranteed success. The Boys (as they were referred to) did the same stunts and were puppets at industry parties and events the same as 1Direction are today. There were, quite simply, pre packaged pop. Fans of real singers like Frank Sinatra etc continually slammed them for their inane lyrics and simplistic melodies. They did go on to change music and to write some of the finest songs of all time, but... in the beginning they were the 1960's 1 direction. You are all just getting old Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ousefox Posted 22 March 2012 Share Posted 22 March 2012 To be fair, The Beatles from 62-65 were four boys singing pop music, the screaming fans didnt have Twitter and facebook, they had another new thing... TV, but it was the same driving force, hormonal teenage girls. They were packaged by their record company and by Epstein, they were a commercial tool and you could buy everything from dolls, to lunch boxes, to wigs, all carrying "The Beatles" seal of approval and guaranteed success. The Boys (as they were referred to) did the same stunts and were puppets at industry parties and events the same as 1Direction are today. There were, quite simply, pre packaged pop. Fans of real singers like Frank Sinatra etc continually slammed them for their inane lyrics and simplistic melodies. They did go on to change music and to write some of the finest songs of all time, but... in the beginning they were the 1960's 1 direction. You are all just getting old But they haven't had everything to them handed on a plate. They weren't put together on a talent contest and they wrote their own music. One Direction and the Beatles put in a sentence together makes me feel sick. Just as bad as mentioning Josh Low and Muzzy Izzet in the same sentence.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox92 Posted 22 March 2012 Share Posted 22 March 2012 But they haven't had everything to them handed on a plate. They weren't put together on a talent contest and they wrote their own music. Exactly this. One Direction, and all "artists" from talent contests, have not worked hard for their "fame". They were handed it, as Watson says, on a plate. They don't write their own music, they cannot play instruments and they don't/can't sing live (have music played through their ear). They shouldn't even be classed as mucisians. Some artsits I may not like, but I will respect them if they write their own music and/or play instruments. I am not on here claiming The Beatles are the best, but in my opinion I think they are, but saying they were "shit" I still find ridiculous. They changed music, end of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrummieFOX Posted 22 March 2012 Share Posted 22 March 2012 Exactly this. One Direction, and all "artists" from talent contests, have not worked hard for their "fame". They were handed it, as Watson says, on a plate. They don't write their own music, they cannot play instruments and they don't/can't sing live (have music played through their ear). They shouldn't even be classed as mucisians. Some artsits I may not like, but I will respect them if they write their own music and/or play instruments. I am not on here claiming The Beatles are the best, but in my opinion I think they are, but saying they were "shit" I still find ridiculous. They changed music, end of. So if The Beatles had Released the exact same Albums but you found out they were indeed 'put' together and handed thousands to make albums would it change your opinion of them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScouseFox Posted 22 March 2012 Share Posted 22 March 2012 What I don't get is why does it matter if Simon Cowell put them together on national tv or if in fact, like The Beatles, they formed on a school field/church hall because they were friends? (the same school I attended, may I add ) How does that in any way affect what we should think of them, or how talented they are? Never understood that argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrummieFOX Posted 22 March 2012 Share Posted 22 March 2012 What I don't get is why does it matter if Simon Cowell put them together on national tv or if in fact, like The Beatles, they formed on a school field/church hall because they were friends? (the same school I attended, may I add ) How does that in any way affect what we should think of them, or how talented they are? Never understood that argument. Exactly, there isn't an argument. It should be based on talent. The being was perhaps The Beatles started out very much as a manufactured pop band, much like the one direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozleicester Posted 23 March 2012 Share Posted 23 March 2012 Also, Im sure if you ask a certain Pete Best whether the Beatles were manufactured, you will get a resounding yes!. He didnt fit the image they were building and he was replaced by a more suitable Ringo Starr. You see, what they should have done, was review their contract with Epstein much earlier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox92 Posted 23 March 2012 Share Posted 23 March 2012 So if The Beatles had Released the exact same Albums but you found out they were indeed 'put' together and handed thousands to make albums would it change your opinion of them? I don't think you get me. Look at my favourite artists. The Beatles, The Who, The Kinks, The Rolling Stones, Marc Bolan, David Bowie, Bob Dylan etc. Notice a pattern? They all worked from the bottom, they all wrote their own music, they all play instruments and they all sing live (not with a microphone in their ear that plays music for them). When The Beatles were making 'Love Me Do' (album), George Martin wrote a song for them because he thought the album and singles wouldn't be good enough. He said this will get you a number one. You know what, The Beatles turned it down, because they wanted to, and did write, all of their own material. In fact, the song went on to become a number one for Gerry and The Pacemakers. It don't matter what Best says, what Epstein did was turn them into suits, and sell them; it was his job. He sold them for a lot of reasons, from their music and albums to Lennon, McCartney's and Harrison's sex appeal. The manufactered comment arose when Davy Jones said they were, and thats when I went off of The Monkees. It's got nothing to do with 'if' this and 'if' that. The artists I love and respect are the ones that worked hard to get to the top, they weren't given it on a plate. They did write their own music and they do play instruments. This story of One Direction, or whoever, being better than The Beatles is ridiculous. The Beatles changed music, they sold over a billion records, they wrote some of the first metal songs, they wrote some of the most fantastic songs... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox92 Posted 23 March 2012 Share Posted 23 March 2012 You see, what they should have done, was review their contract with Epstein much earlier John Lennon said this. But I refer back to my comment in my post above about it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.