|
Replies: 16
| visibility 1
|
All-In [38592]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5841
Joined: 12/8/20
|
|
|
|
 |
Lot o points [180975]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 94621
Joined: 12/5/10
|
#### The Beatles***
Nov 30, 2021, 9:06 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3924]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4707
Joined: 9/2/03
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42866]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10437
Joined: 3/1/18
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [60216]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42553
Joined: 11/30/98
|
srs question as Beatles were a bit before my time.....
Nov 30, 2021, 9:34 PM
|
|
back then did guys admit to liking The Beatles or was it mostly the pubescent girl crowd? All the old clips I've ever seen of their shows looks like a Bieber or NSYNC crowd, 90% shrieking teenage girls.
Appears from looking at concert footage the guys in that era were more into Zeppelin, The Who, or the Stones, and kinda let the chicks have The Beatles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58411]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46321
Joined: 4/23/00
|
No, you've got it all wrong.
Nov 30, 2021, 10:49 PM
|
|
But that's okay, I understand. You had to be there, I guess. Alow me to explain.
This was well before Zeppelin or The Who were formed, and at this stage, the Stones were not a thing in America. When The Beatles made this appearance on TV, it changed popular music overnight, and popular culture in general, and signaled an overall siezmic cultural shift in the world that was about to take place. And no, it wasn't just teenage girls that went crazy over The Beatles, even though that drove a large part of their early success. I suspect you're being funny and poking fun, but to compare them to Bieber is indeed a joke. The whole country stopped on Sunday night to watch The Beatles on Ed Sullivan, with Grandma, parents, kids, and the dog all gathered around the one black and white TV to see what the fuss was all about. By the following weekend, almost all of the boys in our neighborhood were in a garage band of some kind, and as soon as they could grow their hair out (if their parents would let them), they were getting "Beatle haircuts". They all wanted to be like The Beatles. In no time, The Stones followed, and then a few years later The Who, then Zep and the rest, but The Beatles started it all, and until they broke up, were the acknowledged, respected godfathers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [60216]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42553
Joined: 11/30/98
|
crowd. CROWD. AUDIENCE. Talking about the attendees of show.
Nov 30, 2021, 11:26 PM
|
|
NOWHERE did I mention or compare anybody's music.
I was just wondering why the people watching the shows - the fans, the ticket buyers - seemed to be majority high school girls. During THAT specific period of time.
That's all. No implied homosexuality, no implied terrible music, no Bieber music comparisons. It's like I'm under analysis by CNN anchors, everything totally misconstrued.
I'm reading articles about this phenomenon, was hoping to get a bit more insight from someone who lived it.
Some quotes from random articles:
But to most, Beatlemania conjures up a vivid image of frenzied fans, predominantly teenage girls....
------------------
HuffPost reported that “Multiple people have claimed Beatles shows were known for their urine.” One of them was John B. Lynn, the son of the owner of a venue The Beatles played at. He told The Washington Post that the concert hall smelled like the pee of over-excited girls after the show.
In 2010, Irish singer-songwriter Bob Geldof told Q Magazine that he was stunned at the number of young girls “p*ssing themselves” at a Beatles show he attended in the 1960s.
“The Beatles was a case of watching females in excelsis,” he said. “It’s the old cliché, but you couldn’t hear them for all the screaming. I remember looking down at the cinema floor and seeing these rivulets of #### in the aisles. The girls were literally p*ssing themselves with excitement. So what I associate most with The Beatles is the smell of girls’ urine.”
-------
The Beatles were one of the greatest rock 'n' roll bands of all time. They also had one of the fiercest, most intensely loyal fandoms of all time. Beatles fans — mainly teenage girls — offered the band their unbridled devotion throughout the 1960s, buying records and gathering at concert venues in a way that the world had never witnessed before. Without their help, the Fab Four would have never become the legends they are today.
-----------------
But when it came to buying their records and merch, sales figures show that the group’s trailblazing success was largely due to just one fraction of that group: the much-ballyhooed 12-24 demographic, predominantly made of young female fans or “teenyboppers.”
--------------------
Nugget I found that may have been the tipping point?: "Sgt. Pepper's" was the point when rock stopped being the music of girls and started being the music of men.
Is this accurate?
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58411]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46321
Joined: 4/23/00
|
Here's the way I remember it.
Dec 1, 2021, 12:23 AM
|
|
Yes, guys did "admit" to liking The Beatles. Just like guys later admitted to liking The Who and Led Zeppelin. The early, very young Beatles were hugely popular with teenage girls, which immediately got the attention of teenage boys. It was pure marketing. The Beatles were not teenagers, however, and were already writing much deeper, more experimental music which appealed to a slightly older audience which included many who were not shrieking teenage girls. With the release of Rubber Soul in 1965, even though they continued to play their old hits at shows, The Beatles were smoking pot and dropping acid, and had clearly moved beyond the bubble gum pop stage. This experimental, boldly creative songwriting defined the rest of their time together through 1969 when they recorded their last music together.
The Beatles footage in the OP is from 1964. The Who didn't release a single in the U.S. until a year later in 1965 and it topped out at 93. Not many in the U.S. were into them until 1969 when Tommy came out, followed by their appearance at Woodstock. Zeppelin wasn't formed until 1968. They weren't choosing between The Beatles or The Who and Zep.
So yes, screaming teenage girls were a major part of the early Beatles phenomenon, but their fanbase was never exclusively or even primarily consisted of them (as with Bieber or NYSYNC, not even close); they were a cultural phenomenon loved by young males and females alike. The boys just didn't scream, cry, and pee in their pants.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [163012]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31933
Joined: 1/17/07
|
Girls were the screamers.
Dec 1, 2021, 7:23 AM
[ in reply to srs question as Beatles were a bit before my time..... ] |
|
Early Beatles stuff, I was a kid, so I liked it, but it was all top 40 pop music really.
Revolver and Rubber Soul changed that some, and honestly, I did not like these LP's until I was older.
Then Strawberry Fields came out, followed by Sgt Pepper - loved this music as did most,
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [38592]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5841
Joined: 12/8/20
|
before my time
Nov 30, 2021, 9:56 PM
|
|
Excellent post. You seem to have your mind made up and me posting a "too long post' makes me seem like a girl.
I have been a fan and collector of decent tunes for decades. I have no Bieber or NSYNC.
To understand the Beatles one had to be there. They did not just have a tune on BillBoard, but had the top ten. Week after week they had the top tunes. The USA was all in. They were like Elvis and Gene Autry. No one has since been as big. ( look up Gene Autry).
I was there and at the time preferred Southern Soul as did most in my area. I had no money and the only albums I bought were James Brown.
'THE TAMS' ruled.
The deal over time is the Beatles were ~~~
They evolved and changed, but depending on your age at any time -- they were the best. It took me years to become a fan. I am a fan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [60216]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42553
Joined: 11/30/98
|
it's just an observation
Nov 30, 2021, 10:21 PM
|
|
I mean, I love Elvis but his audiences were a bunch of screaming girls too. Don't make his music bad, just the appearance that guys didn't like his music that much. Just trying to learn what the deal was back then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [38592]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5841
Joined: 12/8/20
|
Re: it's just an observation
Nov 30, 2021, 10:26 PM
|
|
Good deal.
You seem to be saying that guys in the 60's who were OK with the Beatles were playing on the other team??
That is over the top crazy.
Ga y or not, we all were OK with the Beatles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155805]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65783
Joined: 5/6/13
|
WHY IS NO ONE UNDERSTANDING WHAT SCOOTER IS ASKING???
Nov 30, 2021, 11:30 PM
|
|
Good Lord the paranoia in the replies to scooter is nuts.
He's making the (VERY VALID) point that in all the early clips of Beatles live performances, it's 90% shrieking girls, and thus he's (VERY VALIDLY) asking, were dudes not into them as much until their later stuff, or did they just not go see them live?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [105525]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65186
Joined: 12/2/02
|
THE GUYS WERE IN THE FIELDS AND AT WORK MAKING MONEY
Dec 1, 2021, 7:57 AM
|
|
SO THE GIRLS COULD GO TO THEIR ROCK & ROLL CONCERTS AND SPEND THE MONEY, GUYS. THE BEATLES WERE ONE OF THE GREATEST EVER AND NOBODY CAN MASS DEBATE THAT. THEY CHANGED THE GAME AND I DONT THINK MEN WERE GAY FOR LISTENING TO IT, THEY WERE JUST ENJOYING THEIR JOBS SO THEIR TEENAGE WIVES COULD GO SCREAM AT PAUL.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [60216]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42553
Joined: 11/30/98
|
thank you Obed, I was starting to wonder
Dec 1, 2021, 8:51 AM
[ in reply to WHY IS NO ONE UNDERSTANDING WHAT SCOOTER IS ASKING??? ] |
|
if my grip of the English language was slipping.
It's always been a mystifying (to me) aspect of the Beatles timeline. They started out early as what we today would call a "boy band" and obviously morphed into something much deeper and influential. Have read that their meeting Bob Dylan was the turning point, I don't know for sure. They certainly pivoted hard musically during their career, as much as any band that ever existed.
I just never have definitively heard whether guys of that era really dug the "Love Me Do"/"I Wanna Hold Your Hand" era stuff. They were obviously writing songs directed at young girls. I wasn't around (at least aware during that time) and was curious. I mean, it's perfectly OK to love one part of a band's catalog/era and hate another part. Doesn't make you less of a fan, or make the band less great.
Take Aerosmith for me - I LOVE their early "Toxic Twins" 70's stuff, some of my favorite albums ever - but care absolutely nothing about the "comeback years" late 80's-90's music. Pearl Jam is like that for some folks. U2, even the Stones. I know hardcore Stones fans who absolutely hate their "disco" Emotional Rescue/Tattoo You/Undercover era, and aren't afraid to proclaim it loudly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58411]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46321
Joined: 4/23/00
|
I get where you are coming from, and I think the reason it's
Dec 1, 2021, 10:03 AM
|
|
hard to understand is that when The Beatles were starting out, there was no Who, Led Zeppelin, or really any other rock band option, much less a more "macho", less "boy band" sounding group. Yes, Bob Dylan existed, but was not mainstream by any means, and at that time still more of an emerging folk artist, not popular music at all. Dylan may have been catching on with some college students in 1964, but not so much high school kids, and nothing like The popularity by boys or girls of The Beatles.
As soon as The Beatles started to catch on, by 1965/66, what we now know as the rock music scence exploded, but at the the time of the videos you are seeing with the screaming girls, popular music was dominated by very innocent, pop/bubble gum music/vocals driven music; think Beach Boys, Bobby Vinton, Any Williams, Bobby Darin, Jan & Dean, The Chiffons, etc.. It was The Beatles that brought the guitars/bass/drums format and made it the go-to for the next 5 decades. What you call "boy band" music by The Beatles, while extremely appealing to teenage girls of the day, was actually pretty wild at that time what with the loud guitars, the screaming vocals, the banging drums, and the long hair. Trust me, what seems tame to you now, was considered almost scandolous by many back then. The Beatles were plowing up new ground, even with "I Want To Hold Your Hand" and "Love Me Do".
This is why boys liked The Beatles. They were wild for 1964. There was no wilder, more testosterone-filled option in the popular music realm. No Who. No Led Zeppelin. The Stones were playing catch up. No such thing as hard rock. No blues rock in the mainstream. In 1964, the choices were really The Beatles, or The Beach Boys/Bobby Vinton/crooner stuff.
Hope that helps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [60216]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42553
Joined: 11/30/98
|
my initial musical influence is my dad's record collection
Dec 1, 2021, 10:48 AM
|
|
isn't everybody's?
My dad didn't care for the Beatles. I suppose they were a little after "his" time, he was more of a 50's teenager. So I really didn't get any exposure to early Beatles and that early/mid-60's rock. It was the 70's before I really started to listen to popular music and develop my own likes and dislikes.
I inherited his record collection, which was chock full of Elvis, Carl Perkins, Jerry Lee Lewis, Link Wray, Johnny Cash, Bo Diddley, and his favorite Eddie Cochran. So my earliest music influence was Eddie Cochran, Link Wray, and Chuck Berry cranked up on the old RCA Victrola console. Pretty heavy stuff considering the era. Heck, The Who covered Eddie Cochran "Summertime Blues". I'm sure those records were a direct influence on my adult musical taste later on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 16
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
