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:
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:
All very valid points, Stig - and I agree there is a lot of snobbery in music, just look at the top ten lists on here from time to time filled with acts that I've never heard of that in my opinion are just saying 'I'm different'.
I have a very wide taste in music but it's all pretty mainstream - my favourites are all well known - Beatles, Stones, Who, Kinks, Small Faces, Led Zep, Sabbath, Purple, Dylan, Mitchell, Young, Cohen, Marley, the Trojan stuff 69-71 - there's a lot more but they will all be familiar including stuff made today. I have no issue at all with early Beatles being labelled 'pop' although even then it was sort of groundbreaking for its time - but it was formulaic. When they left the road and disappeared into the studio that changed - it was truly groundbreaking and there is a very strong argument supported by me that Sgt Pepper is the greatest album ever made - and The Beatles are not my favourite band, Stones forever.
That said, and getting back to the thread, the body of work, the influence, and the musical genius of The Beatles just cannot in my opinion be compared to ABBA - and I don't dislike ABBA!
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:
All very valid points, Stig - and I agree there is a lot of snobbery in music, just look at the top ten lists on here from time to time filled with acts that I've never heard of that in my opinion are just saying 'I'm different'.
I have a very wide taste in music but it's all pretty mainstream - my favourites are all well known - Beatles, Stones, Who, Kinks, Small Faces, Led Zep, Sabbath, Purple, Dylan, Mitchell, Young, Cohen, Marley, the Trojan stuff 69-71 - there's a lot more but they will all be familiar including stuff made today. I have no issue at all with early Beatles being labelled 'pop' although even then it was sort of groundbreaking for its time - but it was formulaic. When they left the road and disappeared into the studio that changed - it was truly groundbreaking and there is a very strong argument supported by me that Sgt Pepper is the greatest album ever made - and The Beatles are not my favourite band, Stones forever.
That said, and getting back to the thread, the body of work, the influence, and the musical genius of The Beatles just cannot in my opinion be compared to ABBA - and I don't dislike ABBA!
Agree with much of that except the ‘but it was formulaic’ line.
It wasn’t formulaic at the time as no one had heard anything like it at the time. That’s why the caused a sensation so instantly. Love Me Do and Please Please Me certainly aren’t my cup of tea, but they knocked people’s socks off at the time they were released.
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:
All very valid points, Stig - and I agree there is a lot of snobbery in music, just look at the top ten lists on here from time to time filled with acts that I've never heard of that in my opinion are just saying 'I'm different'.
I have a very wide taste in music but it's all pretty mainstream - my favourites are all well known - Beatles, Stones, Who, Kinks, Small Faces, Led Zep, Sabbath, Purple, Dylan, Mitchell, Young, Cohen, Marley, the Trojan stuff 69-71 - there's a lot more but they will all be familiar including stuff made today. I have no issue at all with early Beatles being labelled 'pop' although even then it was sort of groundbreaking for its time - but it was formulaic. When they left the road and disappeared into the studio that changed - it was truly groundbreaking and there is a very strong argument supported by me that Sgt Pepper is the greatest album ever made - and The Beatles are not my favourite band, Stones forever.
That said, and getting back to the thread, the body of work, the influence, and the musical genius of The Beatles just cannot in my opinion be compared to ABBA - and I don't dislike ABBA!
Agree with much of that except the ‘but it was formulaic’ line.
It wasn’t formulaic at the time as no one had heard anything like it at the time. That’s why the caused a sensation so instantly. Love Me Do and Please Please Me certainly aren’t my cup of tea, but they knocked people’s socks off at the time they were released.
I did say it was ground breaking! What I meant was their early stuff pretty much followed a formula - Love me Do, Please Please Me, Yeah Yeah Yeah, I Wanna Hold Your Hand - it may have been a new formula though!
Their later stuff didn't and diverged into all sorts of uncharted directions.
Comments
Even I'm younger!
Their later stuff didn't and diverged into all sorts of uncharted directions.