Harry Styles: "One Direction are bigger than the Beatles"
193 replies, posted
holy shit guys i hate one direction's music as much as the next guy but some of you are being retards
in terms of popularity, it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that they are as or more popular as the beatles were. at no point did he say that he believed they were better than them.
music died once they figured out a way of writing it down; it was way better before then
[QUOTE=frozensoda;43867183]music died int he year 1999[/QUOTE]
Daft Punk.
There ya go.
[sp]It's the only really good group I know of, please don't crucify me.[/sp]
1D is an accurate name, they've probably got one D between the 5 of them.
[editline]11th February 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Handsome Matt;43867743]You guys are like those old men that hated the Beatles when they were new just like One Direction.
You don't have to like them or like the fact that they are in fact incredibly popular but you can't deny there is some truth to what Harry is saying.[/QUOTE]
We'll know for sure in 50 years - but I doubt they are anything at all to be compared to the beetles. Especially considering the beetles got to where they did without the internet.
[QUOTE=Flapadar;43868300]1D is an accurate name, they've probably got one D between the 5 of them.[/QUOTE]
That was so fucking awful that it looped back around to being funny. Way to go.
Well the beatles were bigger than jesus sooo your move one direction..
[QUOTE=frozensoda;43867183]music died int he year 1999[/QUOTE]
The day the 90s died, all joy died
Hey, Harry, let me give you some perspective:
When I was a kid, girls used to scream like that, en masse, for New Kids On The Block.
Take that how you will.
When One Direction have sold over 600 million records, then maybe that claim might have some substance
Newsflash!
1D is a million times more cunty than your average boy band!
The main reason I hate 1D is because of that smug irish thundercunt soiling the previously respectable name that is Niall.
*cough*
[quote]
He also made it clear the band do not believe their music is in "the same league" as the Fab Four.[/quote]
why does every single music thread outside the music section have to be shit in facepunch
it feels like everytime one of these threads pops up in sensationalist headlines or the videos section it goes almost the exact same way
"wow <modern popular band> is shit"
"they're not as good as <old popular band>"
"this isn't real music"
then someone makes a joke (or sometimes even a serious post) about modern music sucking
someone replies with a long post with a ton of tagged songs saying "you're dumb" (seriously, if you do this, just link them, dont tag them)
and throw in a couple of mentions of the Beatles and Daft Punk and boom thats a facepunch music thread for you
if people just ignored the crap some people say, everyone will be happier
[sp]pls don't ignore this :([/sp]
One direction and the beetles both suck.
[QUOTE=OogalaBoogal;43866025]The Beatles' lyrics in their early years were the same sort of fluff that One Direction uses today.
IMO The Beatles are highly overrated.[/QUOTE]
this post confuses me so much. you're absolutely spot on with the first half, and you're also visibly aware that what you said only goes as far as the early albums, yet you also believe they're overrated because of that?
I've listened to the beatles almost daily for years and I'll be the first person to tell you that every single thing they did from 1962-1965, "Please, Please Me" to "Help!", was absolutely dog shit. the only significant difference between the beatles of that era and the justin biebers/one directions of today is that the beatles actually wrote the garbage they released.
doesn't change the fact that nearly all of what they did from Rubber Soul to Abbey Road remains unrivaled in modern music.
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;43869310]this post confuses me so much. you're absolutely spot on with the first half, and you're also visibly aware that what you said only goes as far as the early albums, yet you also believe they're overrated because of that?
I've listened to the beatles almost daily for years and I'll be the first person to tell you that every single thing they did from 1962-1965, "Please, Please Me" to "Help!", was absolutely dog shit. the only significant difference between the beatles of that era and the justin biebers/one directions of today is that the beatles actually wrote the garbage they released.
doesn't change the fact that nearly all of what they did from Rubber Soul to Abbey Road remains unrivaled in modern music.[/QUOTE]
he wasn't saying that they're overrated because of their earlier albums, the 2 sentences aren't connected
also, that last statement is completely subjective, personally i've found all the stuff i've heard from the beatles to be incredibly boring and uninteresting
[QUOTE=Hakita;43869353]
also, that last statement is completely subjective, personally i've found all the stuff i've heard from the beatles to be incredibly boring and uninteresting[/QUOTE]
THAT is subjective. has nothing to do with the pioneering, technical innovation, lyrical and musical complexity, social relevance, cultural significance and diversity involved with everything they did. all art can be judged and measured objectively.
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;43869401]THAT is subjective. has nothing to do with the pioneering, technical innovation, lyrical and musical complexity, social relevance, cultural significance and diversity involved with everything they did. all art can be judged and measured objectively.[/QUOTE]
meh, all that is insignificant to the human experience so objectivity can shove it for the time being
[QUOTE=AK'z;43869406]meh, all that is insignificant to the human experience so objectivity can shove it for the time being[/QUOTE]
what you've just claimed is that good and bad are non existent in terms of art. personal experience couldn't be less relevant here. there are plenty of artists who's work I have no interest in, whose artistic merits are also very clear to me.
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;43869401]THAT is subjective. has nothing to do with the pioneering, technical innovation, lyrical and musical complexity, social relevance, cultural significance and diversity involved with everything they did. all art can be judged and measured objectively.[/QUOTE]
yeah, i know it's subjective, that's why i said "personally"
also, pioneering and technical innovation is great and all, but "lyrical and musical complexity"?
dream theater make music that's more complex than the beatles, but that doesn't mean that it's better music
complexity is the worst way to judge something "objectively"
also, social relevance and cultural significance i don't think attribute anything to making something good
i dont think that all art can be judged or measured objectively, and if they can, those objective measurements are worth nothing
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;43869401]all art can be judged and measured objectively.[/QUOTE]
If that were true we wouldn't be having this debate.
All art is dependant on your personal experience and relation to the work, since art is in-fact, a personal experience from creator to receiver.
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;43869436]what you've just claimed is that good and bad are non existent in terms of art.[/QUOTE]
[img]http://guildwars.incgamers.com/forums/images/smilies/large/smiley_bored.gif[/img]
[QUOTE=frozensoda;43867183]music died int he year 1999[/QUOTE]
wow okay
there will never be a band as big as the beatles ever again. hell there will probably never be a band as widely popular/hated/reported on as even oasis ever again (who were of course heavily influenced by the beatles)
because music and the way we listen to music has changed. these days you can get any type of music, no matter how obscure, with a 2 minute google search... probably even for free - it's not necessary to listen to the charts, or listen to the radio, or buy physical media, in order to find new music. this is partially also why genres have been broken down so much to the point where they're barely relevant today
so yeh i think we've probably seen the end of long-lasting pop music. there's probably no band/musician in existence today who has started in the past decade or so who will be remembered as widely as the beatles 40 years
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;43869483]there will never be a band as big as the beatles ever again.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.last.fm/music/Coldplay[/url] - 4,735,581 listeners
[url]http://www.last.fm/music/The+Beatles[/url] - 3,180,427 listeners
just saying..
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;43869483]
so yeh i think we've probably seen the end of long-lasting pop music. there's probably no band/musician in existence today who has started in the past decade or so who will be remembered in 40 years[/QUOTE]
doubt that, good artists will always be remembered. you're telling me everyone is just going to forgot musically the era between the beatles and however far back pop music reaches in the year you're hypothetically talking about?
[editline]11th February 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=AK'z;43869501][URL]http://www.last.fm/music/Coldplay[/URL] - 4,735,581 listeners
[URL]http://www.last.fm/music/The+Beatles[/URL] - 3,180,427 listeners
just saying..[/QUOTE]
yeah and the beatles are old as heck, he meant in terms of percentage of the market, not number of listeners.
[QUOTE=AK'z;43869501][URL]http://www.last.fm/music/Coldplay[/URL] - 4,735,581 listeners
[URL]http://www.last.fm/music/The+Beatles[/URL] - 3,180,427 listeners
just saying..[/QUOTE]
... you're giving me contemporary last fm figures to make a point about the popularity of a band in their hayday?
this isn't about listening figures, it's about a universal worldwide fame. coldplay are a very popular band yeh. it wouldn't surprise me if, statistically, they have sold more than the beatles or whatever, after all the world is a much smaller place now and music is far more wide-reaching
but it's also less centralised. i'm saying that we'll never see a band with the universal popularity of the beatles. and yes i am aware of the rolling stones vs the beatles era and yes i am aware that there were a lot of people who disliked the beatles, but if you compare them to whoever the highest selling artist in the world right now is, they were a hell of a lot more unifying
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;43869514]doubt that, good artists will always be remembered. you're telling me everyone is just going to forgot musically the era between the beatles and however far back pop music reaches in the year you're hypothetically talking about?[/QUOTE]
i don't think that we're never going to listen to anything we listen to now ever again, or that we'll somehow forget all of the music we listen to
but i think the difference is, will we show our kids one direction or coldplay or whatever like our parents showed us the beatles, and will they care about it and enjoy it like we enjoy the beatles? probably not
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;43869561]and yes i am aware of the rolling stones vs the beatles era and yes i am aware that there were a lot of people who disliked the beatles, but if you compare them to whoever the highest selling artist in the world right now is, they were a hell of a lot more unifying
[/QUOTE]
no refuting any of this, but since the discussion was just about "bigness" instead of musicality, I didn't think it was relevant.
in my personal opinion, the things going on in jazz, soul and folk were much more enriching than the world of pop rock. In terms of pop rock though, I reckon Beach Boys were ahead of the game.
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;43869483]there's probably no band/musician in existence today who has started in the past decade or so who will be remembered in 40 years[/QUOTE]
That's incredibly debatable though. Who says we won't remember the cultural and musical innovations made by Kanye West in 40 years?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.