Homicide rates are at about the same level as they were in the mid-1960s and have fallen very dramatically from a late 1990s/early 2000s peak (that's excluding Northern Ireland, if you include it then rates have fallen since the 1960s). It's gone down for the each of the last 5 years
Except, they are not. I'd recommend double checking the ONS stats.
Anyway, back to the matter in hand, I think the difference between the Fab Four and the AB Four is the way they developed over time. Both started out producing sickly sweet pop music. Whereas The Beatles quickly moved on to more adventurous and experimental forms of music, ABBA's development was to keep the pop, but augment it with melancholy introspective ballads. They may have done the sorrowful soul searching better and more bravely than anyone else, but they didn't really push music in any new directions. It's very hard to argue that The Beatles didn't do that.
There is no counter culture any more. Even with the most right wing government in our lifetimes, where are the protest singers? Not enough protest songs.
Beatles are for music snobs who still think they’re down with the kids but in fact go to bed at 8pm with a copy for Fly Fishing by JR Hartley.
Thanks for denigrating a generation, with lazy pigeonholing. Some of us go to bed after midnight you know, with a nice mug of coco.
The OP’s question is moot anyway.
ABBA are clearly in the Top 10 pop groups of all time, along with the likes of the Osmonds, the Spice Girls, Take That, Backstreet Boys, Wham and Steps.
Beatles aren’t even in the same genre.
Dancing Queen *is* one of the best floor fillers of all time as I said earlier, but I really don’t like any of their other songs, like ‘Fernando’. They all seem to be aimed more at the Eurovision market.
Beatles are for music snobs who still think they’re down with the kids but in fact go to bed at 8pm with a copy for Fly Fishing by JR Hartley.
Thanks for denigrating a generation, with lazy pigeonholing. Some of us go to bed after midnight you know, with a nice mug of coco.
The OP’s question is moot anyway.
ABBA are clearly in the Top 10 pop groups of all time, along with the likes of the Osmonds, the Spice Girls, Take That, Backstreet Boys, Wham and Steps.
Beatles aren’t even in the same genre.
Dancing Queen *is* one of the best floor fillers of all time as I said earlier, but I really don’t like any of their other songs, like ‘Fernando’. They all seem to be aimed more at the Eurovision market.
Generally I agree but genres are funny things. The Beatles were considered R&B when they started out.
I think that it's fair to say that The Beatles were pop / rock whereas ABBA were pop / dance
Maybe this is why some people on this thread prefer ABBA. You can dance to them whereas people don't really dance to stuff like Twist and Shout anymore.
I think ‘Twist and Shout’ is based on that absolute classic La Bamba. La Bamba being essentially a Mexican folk song. Loads of aspiring bands of that era had a version of La Bamba, just as most also had a version of Johnny B Good, or something created around the archetypical Bo Diddly riff. Learning this kind of stuff became some of the building blocks bands used to move on, create more, explore genres, and become more creative. As for dancing to Twist and Shout, 40 odd thousand of us were dancing to it not long ago at Wembley.
Except, they are not. I'd recommend double checking the ONS stats.
Anyway, back to the matter in hand, I think the difference between the Fab Four and the AB Four is the way they developed over time. Both started out producing sickly sweet pop music. Whereas The Beatles quickly moved on to more adventurous and experimental forms of music, ABBA's development was to keep the pop, but augment it with melancholy introspective ballads. They may have done the sorrowful soul searching better and more bravely than anyone else, but they didn't really push music in any new directions. It's very hard to argue that The Beatles didn't do that.
“The Beatles started out producing sickly sweet pop music”…..FFS how wrong can you be. Because their sound was so entirely different and NOT FUCKING POP MUSIC is the exact reason why they were so massively successful from the word go…..it’s what they set out to do…..I guess you didn’t know that.😤 If any of The Beatles heard you say that I have no doubt they’d do their pieces and be highly insulted…..so I’ll do it for them. Man oh man.
I think ‘Twist and Shout’ is based on that absolute classic La Bamba. La Bamba being essentially a Mexican folk song. Loads of aspiring bands of that era had a version of La Bamba, just as most also had a version of Johnny B Good, or something created around the archetypical Bo Diddly riff. Learning this kind of stuff became some of the building blocks bands used to move on, create more, explore genres, and become more creative. As for dancing to Twist and Shout, 40 odd thousand of us were dancing to it not long ago at Wembley.
I think ‘Twist and Shout’ is based on that absolute classic La Bamba. La Bamba being essentially a Mexican folk song. Loads of aspiring bands of that era had a version of La Bamba, just as most also had a version of Johnny B Good, or something created around the archetypical Bo Diddly riff. Learning this kind of stuff became some of the building blocks bands used to move on, create more, explore genres, and become more creative. As for dancing to Twist and Shout, 40 odd thousand of us were dancing to it not long ago at Wembley.
The original though the Isleys recorded the best version & was the one that the Beatles copied.
Except, they are not. I'd recommend double checking the ONS stats.
Anyway, back to the matter in hand, I think the difference between the Fab Four and the AB Four is the way they developed over time. Both started out producing sickly sweet pop music. Whereas The Beatles quickly moved on to more adventurous and experimental forms of music, ABBA's development was to keep the pop, but augment it with melancholy introspective ballads. They may have done the sorrowful soul searching better and more bravely than anyone else, but they didn't really push music in any new directions. It's very hard to argue that The Beatles didn't do that.
“The Beatles started out producing sickly sweet pop music”…..FFS how wrong can you be. Because their sound was so entirely different and NOT FUCKING POP MUSIC is the exact reason why they were so massively successful from the word go…..it’s what they set out to do…..I guess you didn’t know that.😤 If any of The Beatles heard you say that I have no doubt they’d do their pieces and be highly insulted…..so I’ll do it for them. Man oh man.
Love me do. I wanna hold your hand. Not pop? Jeezus h fucking christ. Let them be insulted. They are pure pop. Anyone who tels you they aren't is absolutely pulling your plonker.
Except, they are not. I'd recommend double checking the ONS stats.
Anyway, back to the matter in hand, I think the difference between the Fab Four and the AB Four is the way they developed over time. Both started out producing sickly sweet pop music. Whereas The Beatles quickly moved on to more adventurous and experimental forms of music, ABBA's development was to keep the pop, but augment it with melancholy introspective ballads. They may have done the sorrowful soul searching better and more bravely than anyone else, but they didn't really push music in any new directions. It's very hard to argue that The Beatles didn't do that.
“The Beatles started out producing sickly sweet pop music”…..FFS how wrong can you be. Because their sound was so entirely different and NOT FUCKING POP MUSIC is the exact reason why they were so massively successful from the word go…..it’s what they set out to do…..I guess you didn’t know that.😤 If any of The Beatles heard you say that I have no doubt they’d do their pieces and be highly insulted…..so I’ll do it for them. Man oh man.
Love me do. I wanna hold your hand. Not pop? Jeezus h fucking christ. Let them be insulted. They are pure pop. Anyone who tels you they aren't is absolutely pulling your plonker.
I was about six when She Loves You came out in 1963, and it was the most exciting thing I’d ever heard at that time.
My parents had a few singles like Carolina Moon/Stupid Cupid and It’s Now or Never, and we listened to Family Favourites (or whatever it was called), but this was the record that all the kids wanted to hear, in our swinging army base in Germany.
No other act got everyone crowding round the TV when they were on Ready Steady Go or whatever. When other bands came along know one knew their names, but everyone knew John, Paul, George and Ringo.
I was only six or seven, but the effect they had was massive.
The term "Pop Music" can be very divisive, some see it as bubble gum sticky sweet music, but it really only denotes "popular" music, and i agree The Beatles were hugely popular in the early days, and could be described as "pop", but they were so different to what the kids, myself included , were hearing at the time, and i loved them, and still do, there were great albums produced such as Revolver, Rubber Soul. Things changed after the decision to stop touring in '66 due to exhaustion of non stop performances, and they concentrated on studio work, and a new concept emerged in the shape of Sgt Peppers, Magical Mystery Tour, White Album, Let it Be, all great albums, so they were very much open to new music, and had the talent and ability to diversify into new creative styles.
One aspect of the Beatles back in the day is they were a band at a time when often an individual was the main focus. Billy J Kramer and the Dakotas. Cliff Richard and the Shadows. Gerry and the Pacemakers. Tommy James and the Shondells. The Dave Clarke Five …and so on. After the Beatles such titles almost disappeared, you didn’t hear of Roger Daltrey and The Who, or Graham Nash and the Hollies. There were exceptions, but the Beatles represented a cultural change in that respect.
The term "Pop Music" can be very divisive, some see it as bubble gum sticky sweet music, but it really only denotes "popular" music, and i agree The Beatles were hugely popular in the early days, and could be described as "pop", but they were so different to what the kids, myself included , were hearing at the time, and i loved them, and still do, there were great albums produced such as Revolver, Rubber Soul. Things changed after the decision to stop touring in '66 due to exhaustion of non stop performances, and they concentrated on studio work, and a new concept emerged in the shape of Sgt Peppers, Magical Mystery Tour, White Album, Let it Be, all great albums, so they were very much open to new music, and had the talent and ability to diversify into new creative styles.
Pretty much this. The Beatles' 'pop' was completely different to what had come before - I don't particularly like the early stuff from a musical perspective but nobody can say they didn't 'shake up the world' as my ultimate hero would have said! The later stuff is pretty much beyond equal both musically and in terms of seismic change.
Except, they are not. I'd recommend double checking the ONS stats.
Anyway, back to the matter in hand, I think the difference between the Fab Four and the AB Four is the way they developed over time. Both started out producing sickly sweet pop music. Whereas The Beatles quickly moved on to more adventurous and experimental forms of music, ABBA's development was to keep the pop, but augment it with melancholy introspective ballads. They may have done the sorrowful soul searching better and more bravely than anyone else, but they didn't really push music in any new directions. It's very hard to argue that The Beatles didn't do that.
“The Beatles started out producing sickly sweet pop music”…..FFS how wrong can you be. Because their sound was so entirely different and NOT FUCKING POP MUSIC is the exact reason why they were so massively successful from the word go…..it’s what they set out to do…..I guess you didn’t know that.😤 If any of The Beatles heard you say that I have no doubt they’d do their pieces and be highly insulted…..so I’ll do it for them. Man oh man.
Love me do. I wanna hold your hand. Not pop? Jeezus h fucking christ. Let them be insulted. They are pure pop. Anyone who tels you they aren't is absolutely pulling your plonker.
Stig….May I ask how old you are, we’re you even alive at the time?
Do you think you know better than millions of people, such as myself, that lived through that period and knew the difference between ‘pop music’ and the real deal. Love me Do and I wanna hold your Hand were not ever seen or thought of as pop music by my generation but a step into a new era a new beginning a new sound. But you know better I suppose.😴
Except, they are not. I'd recommend double checking the ONS stats.
Anyway, back to the matter in hand, I think the difference between the Fab Four and the AB Four is the way they developed over time. Both started out producing sickly sweet pop music. Whereas The Beatles quickly moved on to more adventurous and experimental forms of music, ABBA's development was to keep the pop, but augment it with melancholy introspective ballads. They may have done the sorrowful soul searching better and more bravely than anyone else, but they didn't really push music in any new directions. It's very hard to argue that The Beatles didn't do that.
“The Beatles started out producing sickly sweet pop music”…..FFS how wrong can you be. Because their sound was so entirely different and NOT FUCKING POP MUSIC is the exact reason why they were so massively successful from the word go…..it’s what they set out to do…..I guess you didn’t know that.😤 If any of The Beatles heard you say that I have no doubt they’d do their pieces and be highly insulted…..so I’ll do it for them. Man oh man.
Love me do. I wanna hold your hand. Not pop? Jeezus h fucking christ. Let them be insulted. They are pure pop. Anyone who tels you they aren't is absolutely pulling your plonker.
Stig….May I ask how old you are, we’re you even alive at the time?
Do you think you know better than millions of people, such as myself, that lived through that period and knew the difference between ‘pop music’ and the real deal. Love me Do and I wanna hold your Hand were not ever seen or thought of as pop music by my generation but a step into a new era a new beginning a new sound. But you know better I suppose.😴
Of course they were seen as pop in the early years, they may have been one of the most popular groups of the time but pop all the same. A lot of their early music were cover versions of black America so not quite a new sound. They were different in the same way that many of the emerging bands were different, their hair was a bit longer than the norm, the collarless jackets, it was all about the look as much as the music & the Beatles were slightly more acceptable to the establishment than the Stones for instance whose hair was a bit longer, they looked "scruffy" & more rebellious. The millions of people living through that period were screaming at their concerts because the band (whoever it was, it wasn't restricted to the beatles for sure) shook the heads, shook a leg anything. Girls were wetting themselves, crying & not because of the music which was inaudible a lot of the time but the image on the stage. It was something new, something different from the skiffle age, it was pop music & the beatles were as much a part of pop music as all the other emerging bands.
Except, they are not. I'd recommend double checking the ONS stats.
Anyway, back to the matter in hand, I think the difference between the Fab Four and the AB Four is the way they developed over time. Both started out producing sickly sweet pop music. Whereas The Beatles quickly moved on to more adventurous and experimental forms of music, ABBA's development was to keep the pop, but augment it with melancholy introspective ballads. They may have done the sorrowful soul searching better and more bravely than anyone else, but they didn't really push music in any new directions. It's very hard to argue that The Beatles didn't do that.
“The Beatles started out producing sickly sweet pop music”…..FFS how wrong can you be. Because their sound was so entirely different and NOT FUCKING POP MUSIC is the exact reason why they were so massively successful from the word go…..it’s what they set out to do…..I guess you didn’t know that.😤 If any of The Beatles heard you say that I have no doubt they’d do their pieces and be highly insulted…..so I’ll do it for them. Man oh man.
Love me do. I wanna hold your hand. Not pop? Jeezus h fucking christ. Let them be insulted. They are pure pop. Anyone who tels you they aren't is absolutely pulling your plonker.
Stig….May I ask how old you are, we’re you even alive at the time?
Do you think you know better than millions of people, such as myself, that lived through that period and knew the difference between ‘pop music’ and the real deal. Love me Do and I wanna hold your Hand were not ever seen or thought of as pop music by my generation but a step into a new era a new beginning a new sound. But you know better I suppose.😴
Of course they were seen as pop in the early years, they may have been one of the most popular groups of the time but pop all the same. A lot of their early music were cover versions of black America so not quite a new sound. They were different in the same way that many of the emerging bands were different, their hair was a bit longer than the norm, the collarless jackets, it was all about the look as much as the music & the Beatles were slightly more acceptable to the establishment than the Stones for instance whose hair was a bit longer, they looked "scruffy" & more rebellious. The millions of people living through that period were screaming at their concerts because the band (whoever it was, it wasn't restricted to the beatles for sure) shook the heads, shook a leg anything. Girls were wetting themselves, crying & not because of the music which was inaudible a lot of the time but the image on the stage. It was something new, something different from the skiffle age, it was pop music & the beatles were as much a part of pop music as all the other emerging bands.
The word ‘pop’ has always been thrown around a bit randomly, but for me what sets pop apart from pop/rock, rock etc is that pop music is just pure entertainment, and has no pretensions to be anything more than that. It’s often created/manufactured deliberately to appeal to the teen market. Stock Aitken and Waterman were masters at it, creating pop stars like Kylie along the way. What sets ABBA apart from much if it though, is that, like it or not, their music has stood the test of time, certainly compared to many other pop acts from the seventies and eighties.
Their sales graphs will have much longer tails than an act like Herman’s Hermits, The Bay City Rollers, or the Rubettes (Sugar Baby Love anyone?) for example.
But as for your final sentence, the Beatles might have come under the pop music umbrella, but they, unlike many of their early rivals, were much more than that; and while they progressed with each album they released, many others were unable to do so.
Listening now it may seem tame and pop but AT THE TIME it was ground breaking just as Elvis and Little Richard had been.
The Beatles were writing their own songs.
The sang in British accents.
They merged old style rock and roll with black R&B and give it a new energy and drive.
It was pop but not like other contemporary pop.
Buddy Holly was dead, Chuck Berry in jail, Little Richard had found God and Elvis was in the Army.
The Beatles reintroduced a lot of American music, especially black music, to Americans and open doors for all the the British and US bands that followed them.
ABBA has some good hooks, terrible lyrics and some sexy women. There was some great music in the early 70s but by the time ABBA won Eurovision a lot of "rock" musicians were taking themselves far to seriously (Prog, Queen, Etc etc) and what became disco hadn't yet become mainstream. So ABBA's easy listening, undemanding and uncomplicated pop had a ready market.
But it's not Revolver and it's not even Please Please Me.
Except, they are not. I'd recommend double checking the ONS stats.
Anyway, back to the matter in hand, I think the difference between the Fab Four and the AB Four is the way they developed over time. Both started out producing sickly sweet pop music. Whereas The Beatles quickly moved on to more adventurous and experimental forms of music, ABBA's development was to keep the pop, but augment it with melancholy introspective ballads. They may have done the sorrowful soul searching better and more bravely than anyone else, but they didn't really push music in any new directions. It's very hard to argue that The Beatles didn't do that.
“The Beatles started out producing sickly sweet pop music”…..FFS how wrong can you be. Because their sound was so entirely different and NOT FUCKING POP MUSIC is the exact reason why they were so massively successful from the word go…..it’s what they set out to do…..I guess you didn’t know that.😤 If any of The Beatles heard you say that I have no doubt they’d do their pieces and be highly insulted…..so I’ll do it for them. Man oh man.
Love me do. I wanna hold your hand. Not pop? Jeezus h fucking christ. Let them be insulted. They are pure pop. Anyone who tels you they aren't is absolutely pulling your plonker.
Stig….May I ask how old you are, we’re you even alive at the time?
Do you think you know better than millions of people, such as myself, that lived through that period and knew the difference between ‘pop music’ and the real deal. Love me Do and I wanna hold your Hand were not ever seen or thought of as pop music by my generation but a step into a new era a new beginning a new sound. But you know better I suppose.😴
Of course they were seen as pop in the early years, they may have been one of the most popular groups of the time but pop all the same. A lot of their early music were cover versions of black America so not quite a new sound. They were different in the same way that many of the emerging bands were different, their hair was a bit longer than the norm, the collarless jackets, it was all about the look as much as the music & the Beatles were slightly more acceptable to the establishment than the Stones for instance whose hair was a bit longer, they looked "scruffy" & more rebellious. The millions of people living through that period were screaming at their concerts because the band (whoever it was, it wasn't restricted to the beatles for sure) shook the heads, shook a leg anything. Girls were wetting themselves, crying & not because of the music which was inaudible a lot of the time but the image on the stage. It was something new, something different from the skiffle age, it was pop music & the beatles were as much a part of pop music as all the other emerging bands.
Except, they are not. I'd recommend double checking the ONS stats.
Anyway, back to the matter in hand, I think the difference between the Fab Four and the AB Four is the way they developed over time. Both started out producing sickly sweet pop music. Whereas The Beatles quickly moved on to more adventurous and experimental forms of music, ABBA's development was to keep the pop, but augment it with melancholy introspective ballads. They may have done the sorrowful soul searching better and more bravely than anyone else, but they didn't really push music in any new directions. It's very hard to argue that The Beatles didn't do that.
“The Beatles started out producing sickly sweet pop music”…..FFS how wrong can you be. Because their sound was so entirely different and NOT FUCKING POP MUSIC is the exact reason why they were so massively successful from the word go…..it’s what they set out to do…..I guess you didn’t know that.😤 If any of The Beatles heard you say that I have no doubt they’d do their pieces and be highly insulted…..so I’ll do it for them. Man oh man.
Love me do. I wanna hold your hand. Not pop? Jeezus h fucking christ. Let them be insulted. They are pure pop. Anyone who tels you they aren't is absolutely pulling your plonker.
Pulling my plonker……that made me laugh. Once again…..how old are you Stig, it’s a very relevant question?
Except, they are not. I'd recommend double checking the ONS stats.
Anyway, back to the matter in hand, I think the difference between the Fab Four and the AB Four is the way they developed over time. Both started out producing sickly sweet pop music. Whereas The Beatles quickly moved on to more adventurous and experimental forms of music, ABBA's development was to keep the pop, but augment it with melancholy introspective ballads. They may have done the sorrowful soul searching better and more bravely than anyone else, but they didn't really push music in any new directions. It's very hard to argue that The Beatles didn't do that.
“The Beatles started out producing sickly sweet pop music”…..FFS how wrong can you be. Because their sound was so entirely different and NOT FUCKING POP MUSIC is the exact reason why they were so massively successful from the word go…..it’s what they set out to do…..I guess you didn’t know that.😤 If any of The Beatles heard you say that I have no doubt they’d do their pieces and be highly insulted…..so I’ll do it for them. Man oh man.
Love me do. I wanna hold your hand. Not pop? Jeezus h fucking christ. Let them be insulted. They are pure pop. Anyone who tels you they aren't is absolutely pulling your plonker.
Stig….May I ask how old you are, we’re you even alive at the time?
Do you think you know better than millions of people, such as myself, that lived through that period and knew the difference between ‘pop music’ and the real deal. Love me Do and I wanna hold your Hand were not ever seen or thought of as pop music by my generation but a step into a new era a new beginning a new sound. But you know better I suppose.😴
Of course they were seen as pop in the early years, they may have been one of the most popular groups of the time but pop all the same. A lot of their early music were cover versions of black America so not quite a new sound. They were different in the same way that many of the emerging bands were different, their hair was a bit longer than the norm, the collarless jackets, it was all about the look as much as the music & the Beatles were slightly more acceptable to the establishment than the Stones for instance whose hair was a bit longer, they looked "scruffy" & more rebellious. The millions of people living through that period were screaming at their concerts because the band (whoever it was, it wasn't restricted to the beatles for sure) shook the heads, shook a leg anything. Girls were wetting themselves, crying & not because of the music which was inaudible a lot of the time but the image on the stage. It was something new, something different from the skiffle age, it was pop music & the beatles were as much a part of pop music as all the other emerging bands.
Except, they are not. I'd recommend double checking the ONS stats.
Anyway, back to the matter in hand, I think the difference between the Fab Four and the AB Four is the way they developed over time. Both started out producing sickly sweet pop music. Whereas The Beatles quickly moved on to more adventurous and experimental forms of music, ABBA's development was to keep the pop, but augment it with melancholy introspective ballads. They may have done the sorrowful soul searching better and more bravely than anyone else, but they didn't really push music in any new directions. It's very hard to argue that The Beatles didn't do that.
“The Beatles started out producing sickly sweet pop music”…..FFS how wrong can you be. Because their sound was so entirely different and NOT FUCKING POP MUSIC is the exact reason why they were so massively successful from the word go…..it’s what they set out to do…..I guess you didn’t know that.😤 If any of The Beatles heard you say that I have no doubt they’d do their pieces and be highly insulted…..so I’ll do it for them. Man oh man.
Love me do. I wanna hold your hand. Not pop? Jeezus h fucking christ. Let them be insulted. They are pure pop. Anyone who tels you they aren't is absolutely pulling your plonker.
Stig….May I ask how old you are, we’re you even alive at the time?
Do you think you know better than millions of people, such as myself, that lived through that period and knew the difference between ‘pop music’ and the real deal. Love me Do and I wanna hold your Hand were not ever seen or thought of as pop music by my generation but a step into a new era a new beginning a new sound. But you know better I suppose.😴
SoundAs, I think my age is probably rather less important to this debate than yours and I'll explain why in a minute. I'm not shy though so I'll tell you that, as you suspect, I'm a bit younger than you. I was born at the height of Beatlemania so you're right I'm a bit young to have been one of the teenage girls in that famous newsreel at Heathrow Airport. That's not to say that I haven't had the chance to hear plenty of Beatles records in the fifty seven years that have followed. I've had more than enough opportunity to listen, to think about what I'm listening to and to form an opinion that's every bit as valid as yours.
You state that, "Love me Do and I wanna hold your Hand were not ever seen or thought of as pop music by my generation but a step into a new era a new beginning a new sound". I have no doubts that you are absolutely correct in that. However whether your generation thought of it as pop music isn't the point. We're discussing the nature of the beast, not one generation's perceptions of it. Here's where I think your age is more likely to cause an error of judgement than mine: Most of us want to think that the stuff we are into is significant. There's a certain snobbery about pop music. The facts that its simple and catchy and repetitive (arguably its greatest strengths), don't actually give it a lot of kudos. Describing something a pop seems to detract from its value somehow. It shouldn't, but it does. So, the 'pop' label is shunned because it is taken as an insult. That's exactly how you've reacted to my comments. But my labelling of the early Beatles music as pop is not intended to insult, it's merely a statement of the truth. Being of the Beatle's generation is a hinderance to objectivity because you have a vested interest: You don't want The Beatles to be labelled as pop. Don't worry though, I'm sure we've all done it. I've argued that artists from my generation weren't pop. I've denied that New Order, Julian Cope and even The Human League were pop. But of course they are. Every bloody one of them. I just wanted to think I was listening to stuff with a bit more gravitas.
Think about the key features and components of a pop song and tell me if you honestly believe that these don't apply to The Beatles early hits: Aimed at a wide audience, usually young. Short, usually between 2-4 mins. Simple structure usually a variation of verse, chorus, verse, chorus, mid eight... Catchy melodies and hooks. Predominantly simple chords in a major key. Familiar chord progressions. Moderate to fast tempo, usually in 4/4 time. Music integrated with fashion so there's a certain style as well as a sound...
If you're still not convinced you might like to try reading about it. The Oxford Dictionary of Music is a good place to start. Here's a link to an online version. If you scroll to page 1697 you'll see their description of Pop music. It's only short though so there's only space to name three artists. Guess what? One of them is The Beatles (and another is ABBA)
Finally, if you still don't believe me, you might like to put your age to an advantage. Think back to 1963 when the Beatles made a series of sixteen radio programmes for the BBC. I'm far to young to remember what they called those programmes, but I'm sure you can:
Except, they are not. I'd recommend double checking the ONS stats.
Anyway, back to the matter in hand, I think the difference between the Fab Four and the AB Four is the way they developed over time. Both started out producing sickly sweet pop music. Whereas The Beatles quickly moved on to more adventurous and experimental forms of music, ABBA's development was to keep the pop, but augment it with melancholy introspective ballads. They may have done the sorrowful soul searching better and more bravely than anyone else, but they didn't really push music in any new directions. It's very hard to argue that The Beatles didn't do that.
“The Beatles started out producing sickly sweet pop music”…..FFS how wrong can you be. Because their sound was so entirely different and NOT FUCKING POP MUSIC is the exact reason why they were so massively successful from the word go…..it’s what they set out to do…..I guess you didn’t know that.😤 If any of The Beatles heard you say that I have no doubt they’d do their pieces and be highly insulted…..so I’ll do it for them. Man oh man.
Love me do. I wanna hold your hand. Not pop? Jeezus h fucking christ. Let them be insulted. They are pure pop. Anyone who tels you they aren't is absolutely pulling your plonker.
Stig….May I ask how old you are, we’re you even alive at the time?
Do you think you know better than millions of people, such as myself, that lived through that period and knew the difference between ‘pop music’ and the real deal. Love me Do and I wanna hold your Hand were not ever seen or thought of as pop music by my generation but a step into a new era a new beginning a new sound. But you know better I suppose.😴
SoundAs, I think my age is probably rather less important to this debate than yours and I'll explain why in a minute. I'm not shy though so I'll tell you that, as you suspect, I'm a bit younger than you. I was born at the height of Beatlemania so you're right I'm a bit young to have been one of the teenage girls in that famous newsreel at Heathrow Airport. That's not to say that I haven't had the chance to hear plenty of Beatles records in the fifty seven years that have followed. I've had more than enough opportunity to listen, to think about what I'm listening to and to form an opinion that's every bit as valid as yours.
You state that, "Love me Do and I wanna hold your Hand were not ever seen or thought of as pop music by my generation but a step into a new era a new beginning a new sound". I have no doubts that you are absolutely correct in that. However whether your generation thought of it as pop music isn't the point. We're discussing the nature of the beast, not one generation's perceptions of it. Here's where I think your age is more likely to cause an error of judgement than mine: Most of us want to think that the stuff we are into is significant. There's a certain snobbery about pop music. The facts that its simple and catchy and repetitive (arguably its greatest strengths), don't actually give it a lot of kudos. Describing something a pop seems to detract from its value somehow. It shouldn't, but it does. So, the 'pop' label is shunned because it is taken as an insult. That's exactly how you've reacted to my comments. But my labelling of the early Beatles music as pop is not intended to insult, it's merely a statement of the truth. Being of the Beatle's generation is a hinderance to objectivity because you have a vested interest: You don't want The Beatles to be labelled as pop. Don't worry though, I'm sure we've all done it. I've argued that artists from my generation weren't pop. I've denied that New Order, Julian Cope and even The Human League were pop. But of course they are. Every bloody one of them. I just wanted to think I was listening to stuff with a bit more gravitas.
Think about the key features and components of a pop song and tell me if you honestly believe that these don't apply to The Beatles early hits: Aimed at a wide audience, usually young. Short, usually between 2-4 mins. Simple structure usually a variation of verse, chorus, verse, chorus, mid eight... Catchy melodies and hooks. Predominantly simple chords in a major key. Familiar chord progressions. Moderate to fast tempo, usually in 4/4 time. Music integrated with fashion so there's a certain style as well as a sound...
If you're still not convinced you might like to try reading about it. The Oxford Dictionary of Music is a good place to start. Here's a link to an online version. If you scroll to page 1697 you'll see their description of Pop music. It's only short though so there's only space to name three artists. Guess what? One of them is The Beatles (and another is ABBA)
Finally, if you still don't believe me, you might like to put your age to an advantage. Think back to 1963 when the Beatles made a series of sixteen radio programmes for the BBC. I'm far to young to remember what they called those programmes, but I'm sure you can:
Comments
Anyway, back to the matter in hand, I think the difference between the Fab Four and the AB Four is the way they developed over time. Both started out producing sickly sweet pop music. Whereas The Beatles quickly moved on to more adventurous and experimental forms of music, ABBA's development was to keep the pop, but augment it with melancholy introspective ballads. They may have done the sorrowful soul searching better and more bravely than anyone else, but they didn't really push music in any new directions. It's very hard to argue that The Beatles didn't do that.
https://www.digitalspy.com/music/a175503/bjrn-ulvaeus-hails-beatles-influence/
ABBA singing The Beatles:
https://famuse.co/what-did-the-beatles-think-of-abba/
I think that it's fair to say that The Beatles were pop / rock whereas ABBA were pop / dance
Maybe this is why some people on this thread prefer ABBA. You can dance to them whereas people don't really dance to stuff like Twist and Shout anymore.
La Bamba being essentially a Mexican folk song.
Loads of aspiring bands of that era had a version of La Bamba, just as most also had a version of Johnny B Good, or something created around the archetypical Bo Diddly riff.
Learning this kind of stuff became some of the building blocks bands used to move on, create more, explore genres, and become more creative.
As for dancing to Twist and Shout, 40 odd thousand of us were dancing to it not long ago at Wembley.
Because their sound was so entirely different and NOT FUCKING POP MUSIC is the exact reason why they were so massively successful from the word go…..it’s what they set out to do…..I guess you didn’t know that.😤
If any of The Beatles heard you say that I have no doubt they’d do their pieces and be highly insulted…..so I’ll do it for them.
Man oh man.
The original though the Isleys recorded the best version & was the one that the Beatles copied.
Isley Brothers
Things changed after the decision to stop touring in '66 due to exhaustion of non stop performances, and they concentrated on studio work, and a new concept emerged in the shape of Sgt Peppers, Magical Mystery Tour, White Album, Let it Be, all great albums, so they were very much open to new music, and had the talent and ability to diversify into new creative styles.
Billy J Kramer and the Dakotas.
Cliff Richard and the Shadows.
Gerry and the Pacemakers.
Tommy James and the Shondells.
The Dave Clarke Five
…and so on.
After the Beatles such titles almost disappeared, you didn’t hear of Roger Daltrey and The Who, or Graham Nash and the Hollies.
There were exceptions, but the Beatles represented a cultural change in that respect.
ABBA didn't change anything in my opinion.
Love me Do and I wanna hold your Hand were not ever seen or thought of as pop music by my generation but a step into a new era a new beginning a new sound.
But you know better I suppose.😴
What sets ABBA apart from much if it though, is that, like it or not, their music has stood the test of time, certainly compared to many other pop acts from the seventies and eighties.
But they changed a lot.
Listening now it may seem tame and pop but AT THE TIME it was ground breaking just as Elvis and Little Richard had been.
The Beatles were writing their own songs.
The sang in British accents.
They merged old style rock and roll with black R&B and give it a new energy and drive.
It was pop but not like other contemporary pop.
Buddy Holly was dead, Chuck Berry in jail, Little Richard had found God and Elvis was in the Army.
The Beatles reintroduced a lot of American music, especially black music, to Americans and open doors for all the the British and US bands that followed them.
ABBA has some good hooks, terrible lyrics and some sexy women. There was some great music in the early 70s but by the time ABBA won Eurovision a lot of "rock" musicians were taking themselves far to seriously (Prog, Queen, Etc etc) and what became disco hadn't yet become mainstream. So ABBA's easy listening, undemanding and uncomplicated pop had a ready market.
But it's not Revolver and it's not even Please Please Me.
Once again…..how old are you Stig, it’s a very relevant question?
SoundAs, I think my age is probably rather less important to this debate than yours and I'll explain why in a minute. I'm not shy though so I'll tell you that, as you suspect, I'm a bit younger than you. I was born at the height of Beatlemania so you're right I'm a bit young to have been one of the teenage girls in that famous newsreel at Heathrow Airport. That's not to say that I haven't had the chance to hear plenty of Beatles records in the fifty seven years that have followed. I've had more than enough opportunity to listen, to think about what I'm listening to and to form an opinion that's every bit as valid as yours.
You state that, "Love me Do and I wanna hold your Hand were not ever seen or thought of as pop music by my generation but a step into a new era a new beginning a new sound". I have no doubts that you are absolutely correct in that. However whether your generation thought of it as pop music isn't the point. We're discussing the nature of the beast, not one generation's perceptions of it. Here's where I think your age is more likely to cause an error of judgement than mine: Most of us want to think that the stuff we are into is significant. There's a certain snobbery about pop music. The facts that its simple and catchy and repetitive (arguably its greatest strengths), don't actually give it a lot of kudos. Describing something a pop seems to detract from its value somehow. It shouldn't, but it does. So, the 'pop' label is shunned because it is taken as an insult. That's exactly how you've reacted to my comments. But my labelling of the early Beatles music as pop is not intended to insult, it's merely a statement of the truth. Being of the Beatle's generation is a hinderance to objectivity because you have a vested interest: You don't want The Beatles to be labelled as pop. Don't worry though, I'm sure we've all done it. I've argued that artists from my generation weren't pop. I've denied that New Order, Julian Cope and even The Human League were pop. But of course they are. Every bloody one of them. I just wanted to think I was listening to stuff with a bit more gravitas.
Think about the key features and components of a pop song and tell me if you honestly believe that these don't apply to The Beatles early hits: Aimed at a wide audience, usually young. Short, usually between 2-4 mins. Simple structure usually a variation of verse, chorus, verse, chorus, mid eight... Catchy melodies and hooks. Predominantly simple chords in a major key. Familiar chord progressions. Moderate to fast tempo, usually in 4/4 time. Music integrated with fashion so there's a certain style as well as a sound...
If you're still not convinced you might like to try reading about it. The Oxford Dictionary of Music is a good place to start. Here's a link to an online version. If you scroll to page 1697 you'll see their description of Pop music. It's only short though so there's only space to name three artists. Guess what? One of them is The Beatles (and another is ABBA)
Finally, if you still don't believe me, you might like to put your age to an advantage. Think back to 1963 when the Beatles made a series of sixteen radio programmes for the BBC. I'm far to young to remember what they called those programmes, but I'm sure you can: