• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Beatles = Backstreet Boys of the sixties?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
brainhulk said:
Someone mentioned that on the radio the other day. Just wondering if there was any validity
Click to expand...


Beatles = Backstreet Boys of the sixties?
Click to expand...

I find that an insult. What heresy is this combination of foul words.
Beatles had a lot of influence with their music. Backstreet boys were just a format to seduce young teenage girls to spend their pocket money on cd or record singles or whatever merchandise.
 
Drako said:
Surely you can't be serious? 😀
Click to expand...

I am. Early beatles stuff was kitchy and popish. early kinks was edgy and, imo, done better. Now, later on when the kinks kept doing the same old same old and the beatles evolved into better music, abby road era, thats when the beatles became the beatles. Initially, kinks better than beatles.
 
Oyeve said:
I am. Early beatles stuff was kitchy and popish. early kinks was edgy and, imo, done better. Now, later on when the kinks kept doing the same old same old and the beatles evolved into better music, abby road era, thats when the beatles became the beatles. Initially, kinks better than beatles.
Click to expand...

My comment was directed at the OP, not you. :\
 
well, they pretty much were until they met Dylan and he taught them how to get high and write good music.

not to say that their early pop incarnation was nothing but mindless pop--they did put out some unique sounds and thus more or less establish the genre, after all--but one can easily look at "Meet the Beatles" and "Revolver" and see two very different things going on.

leading up to the first US tour--the Beatles formula was very much analogous to what you see with modern boy bands: "rebellious hair" and cute kids that make girls go wild and piss off their parents, simple, catchy tunes. Much of it was marketing. If you look at them through that lens, at that time in their career, it's hard not to make that comparison.
 
Last edited:
Yes and no. The main problem is you can't compare pop music over such a long period of time so to ask if a recent pop group is like a group from the 60s isn't going to quite work out.

The music they made and the audience they had and were marketed to was very similar. Early Beatles were a marketing juggernaut by the time they came over to the US.

They wrote their own music, played instruments and later on would contribute in various ways to music beyond just putting out pop hit after pop hit which is obviously different than Backstreet.

If they had stopped after the first couple albums they'd be remembered as a big pop band and nothing more which is exactly what Backstreet will be remembered as. It was their evolution that cemented them as influential.
 
Well, all I can say is take every "hit" of the Backstreet Boys and put them up against these songs from The Beatles, which is nowhere near all their "hits", see who owns who:

Yesterday

Let It Be

Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds

Eleanor Rigby

Yellow Submarine

Norwegian Wood

The Long and Winding Road

Octopus's Garden

Strawberry Fields

Come Together

Can't Buy Me Love

A Day In The Life

Here Comes The Sun

Birthday


And on and on and on........


And as soon as the Backstreet Boys achieve Most Influential artist of whatever decade they were popular in, not of rock like The Beatles are constantly credited for, like in 2004 being called the greatest artist of all time by Rolling Stone, let me know.........
 
Last edited:
Haha, Yellow Submarine listed in defense of the Beatles. That's hilarious.

KT
 
"They were until they weren't, so yes" is completely absurd reasoning. Roger Federer was an average pro tennis player with emotional issues until he became the best of his era and possibly the greatest of all time. Does that mean he was the Jeff Tarango of the modern era?
 
brainhulk said:
Someone mentioned that on the radio the other day. Just wondering if there was any validity
Click to expand...

I'm wondering whether you're trolling or whether you could be oblivious to the fact that the Beatles wrote and played their own music, and music for the next few decades was just a *teensy bit guided* by what they did.

The Backstreet Boys on the other hand didn't contribute anything. They were a production by the pop industry, not a group of artists.

Having said all that, I hate 'Yellow Submarine' with a passion.
 
Last edited:
Drako said:
Come on man. Give Ringo some credit. 😀

At least the Beatles wrote their own songs.
Click to expand...

I will give Ringo credit for being a mediocre drummer and writings songs a child could write.

Harrison was obviously the best Beatle, even if he went all Hindi on us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top