If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(New Musical Express)   The bestselling album of 2013 belonged to One Direction. This is what happens when parents give their children an allowance   (nme.com) divider line 49
    More: Fail, Midnight Memories, personal allowance, Official Charts Company, Morgan Spurlock, selling album, our version of events  
•       •       •

511 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 01 Jan 2014 at 8:39 AM (38 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



49 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-01-01 08:57:24 AM
Because as we all know, popularity is defined to equal quality.

So it isn't 'obscure indie band you and your roaches haven't ever heard of they're so hardcore and underground', or 'band who was a massive pop success 30 years ago and still tours to fans but hasn't had a radio hit in 20 years'.

Who cares. If people want to enjoy shoving paperclips up their noses, why does that mean I have some right/duty to shiat on them?  I'm tired and cranky and not at all in the mood for a musical pissing match.
 
2014-01-01 08:57:43 AM

BREAKING NEWS: Pop music sells by the farkload.


i.imgur.com

 
2014-01-01 09:14:08 AM
Worldwide

Albums
Bruno Mars - Unorthodox Jukebox
Atlantic - 4,0 million copies
Justin Timberlake - The 20/20 Experience
RCA - 3,8 million copies
Daft Punk - Random Access Memories
Daft Life / Columbia - 3,1 million copies


Singles
Blurred Lines - Robin Thicke feat. T.I. & Pharrell Williams
Interscope - 11.633.000 points
Get Lucky - Daft Punk feat. Pharrell Williams
Daft Life / Columbia - 9.065.000 points
Thrift Shop - Macklemore & Ryan Lewis feat. Wanz
Macklemore - 8.646.000 points
 
2014-01-01 09:42:51 AM
That also explains the popularity of the Beatles.
 
2014-01-01 09:56:46 AM
The White Stripes sucked.
 
2014-01-01 10:30:17 AM
Pop music that appeals to the teenage girl demographic has always sucked. Yes, boomers, the farking Beatles too. People need to stop getting pissed off about it. These are the same people who got pissed off at Barney the dinosaur back in the 90s.
 
2014-01-01 10:43:38 AM
You mean One Dimension?
 
2014-01-01 11:02:02 AM

Mugato: Pop music that appeals to the teenage girl demographic has always sucked. Yes, boomers, the farking Beatles too. People need to stop getting pissed off about it. These are the same people who got pissed off at Barney the dinosaur back in the 90s.


The Beatles never sucked. Yes, they were essentially a boy-band with little originality initially, but even then, they came up with some decent hooks that can still be insessant earworms. Then they got better and were able to broaden their appeal. Even trying to argue that they are overrated is difficult. Regardless of how you personally feel about their music, their influence and historical importance are astounding, although I would argue that Black Sabbath has the most tangible, widespread direct influence on modern rock than perhaps any other non-blues band.

As an aside, Duran Duran was just trash pop for girls, right? Maybe give them another chance.
 
2014-01-01 11:13:57 AM

Wasilla Hillbilly: Mugato: Pop music that appeals to the teenage girl demographic has always sucked. Yes, boomers, the farking Beatles too. People need to stop getting pissed off about it. These are the same people who got pissed off at Barney the dinosaur back in the 90s.

The Beatles never sucked. Yes, they were essentially a boy-band with little originality initially, but even then, they came up with some decent hooks that can still be insessant earworms. Then they got better and were able to broaden their appeal. Even trying to argue that they are overrated is difficult. Regardless of how you personally feel about their music, their influence and historical importance are astounding, although I would argue that Black Sabbath has the most tangible, widespread direct influence on modern rock than perhaps any other non-blues band.

As an aside, Duran Duran was just trash pop for girls, right? Maybe give them another chance.


I agree with just about everything you said. However, I would add the fact that there was so little choice in how and where you attained your entertainment back in those days, it definitely contributed in the Beatles (and others) popularity. With that limited choice, it allowed for a more widespread cultural phenomenon. Nowadays, there are 2000 channels on your TV set. Rock music has 500 factions (nu-metal, death metal, stoner rock, folk-metal, etc). How can it even be possible to have the influence today that the Beatles enjoyed back then?
 
2014-01-01 11:23:37 AM

Cortez the Killer: How can it even be possible to have the influence today that the Beatles enjoyed back then?


It may be highly unlikely, but I hope not impossible. I like to think something transcendent could come along and change the game to the point that 50 years down the road people will look at it in a similar fashion, historically.
 
2014-01-01 11:32:28 AM

Wasilla Hillbilly: Cortez the Killer: How can it even be possible to have the influence today that the Beatles enjoyed back then?

It may be highly unlikely, but I hope not impossible. I like to think something transcendent could come along and change the game to the point that 50 years down the road people will look at it in a similar fashion, historically.


Like what curt did with Nirvana.
 
2014-01-01 11:44:54 AM

duffblue: Wasilla Hillbilly: Cortez the Killer: How can it even be possible to have the influence today that the Beatles enjoyed back then?

It may be highly unlikely, but I hope not impossible. I like to think something transcendent could come along and change the game to the point that 50 years down the road people will look at it in a similar fashion, historically.

Like what curt did with Nirvana.


Hopefully, one does not need to blow one's head off to achieve said game changing.

/Likes Nirvana ok
//Hoping Queens of the Stone Age will take off. Their last album is brilliant.
 
2014-01-01 11:47:13 AM

duffblue: Wasilla Hillbilly: Cortez the Killer: How can it even be possible to have the influence today that the Beatles enjoyed back then?

It may be highly unlikely, but I hope not impossible. I like to think something transcendent could come along and change the game to the point that 50 years down the road people will look at it in a similar fashion, historically.

Like what curt did with Nirvana.


Nirvana had nowhere near the impact of the Beatles. I would argue that the only artist who at all came close to that kind of impact was Michael Jackson.  I would also agree that it's nigh-impossible for another musician to make the same impact as The Beatles and has been for at least a couple decades now.
 
2014-01-01 12:13:09 PM
Not only allowances, but birthdays too!
\taking my soon to bie 10 year old daughter to one of their shows next year
 
2014-01-01 12:20:50 PM
What Nirvana did was different. They came out of nowhere and nearly destroyed the hair-band scene overnight. Both bands were influenced by and derivative of less popular acts, but the scales are different. Nirvana changed the game sure, but The Beatles dominated music to a much larger extent. The Beatles quickly evolved to follow trends, Nirvana was static (albeit short-lived).
 
2014-01-01 12:25:53 PM
I cant take them seriously as I was living in the UK at the time and the girlfriend was a big X factor fan which meant I was a big X factor fan.  These guys were all guys that couldnt make it past auditions but Simon Cowell glued them together (which he had done with other groups in previous seasons) and now they are suddenly awesome.  If you watch that particular season in its entirety you can tell there are a couple of the guys that obviously dont want to be there in a boy band.  If you continue to watch them closely you can still tell in interviews that there are a couple of them that probably like the money but dont like the train they are riding.
 
2014-01-01 12:31:04 PM
I made sure my girls listened to Pink Floyd, Five Finger Death Punch, Halestorm, and whatever other rock both new and old I could think of.  My three-year-old can now play drums like a natural as a result.

/because screw pop music!
 
2014-01-01 12:36:35 PM
Wasilla Hillbilly: What Nirvana did was different. They came out of nowhere and nearly destroyed the hair-band scene overnight. Both bands were influenced by and derivative of less popular acts, but the scales are different. Nirvana changed the game sure, but The Beatles dominated music to a much larger extent. The Beatles quickly evolved to follow trends, Nirvana was static (albeit short-lived). had cute singer and hair metal sales were dropping for some time, So DGC/Universal gave them to good producer who made their music acceptable for masses.

Wake up. sheeple
 
2014-01-01 12:38:20 PM
Because economic recovery. Because mass appeal. Because pampered second-wave Millenials.

What about Madonna & Michael Jackson in 1983-84 when the US & so forth were getting out of the doldrums?

/gorilla in the room
//about 5000 lbs.
 
2014-01-01 12:39:35 PM
Also need to take into consideration modern technology. The world is connected via the Internet (for better or worse), so many more people have access to other sorts of music that they would not have had a mere 20 years ago, just by opening [browser] and pointing it to [website].

In the old days, one would need to wait for the radio or a music television station (on cable no less) to broadcast something new to them, or wait for a tour to come to a nearby town.

Now, since we have the internet, the same person could just as easily go to Pandora, Youtube, or some other site and get ridiculous amount of music for free. Whether they use these services to broaden their interests, or if they stick with the same stuff they get on the radio, then that is their choice.

Music pissing contests suck.
 
2014-01-01 12:40:24 PM

Wasilla Hillbilly: What Nirvana did was different. They came out of nowhere and nearly destroyed the hair-band scene overnight


That was Guns n Roses.
 
2014-01-01 12:58:24 PM

Mugato: Wasilla Hillbilly: What Nirvana did was different. They came out of nowhere and nearly destroyed the hair-band scene overnight

That was Guns n Roses.


They both helped
 
2014-01-01 01:04:00 PM

Wasilla Hillbilly: What Nirvana did was different.


to the mainstream yes. Though I can see how they were revelatory in 1991 the only way to find new music was either the radio, MTV, or randomly purchasing an album , I really don't understand how Nirvana's legacy has really stood up for 20+ years. I mean, they're a good band, but nothing that a dozen or so legitimately groundbreaking bands (who still continue to influence new bands) weren't doing better.

Where Beatles and Nirvana comparisons break down is that while both were popular, The Beatles were a gamechanger on multiple fronts whereas Nirvana's influence is very much limited to Rock only (and in my opinion, irrelevant by the end of the decade.)
 
2014-01-01 01:06:32 PM

Mugato: Wasilla Hillbilly: What Nirvana did was different. They came out of nowhere and nearly destroyed the hair-band scene overnight

That was Guns n Roses.


Albeit when they were on of them. Axl's hair was pretty gottdamn big in that first video of "Welcome to the Jungle".

/I know, their music was much different than the rest of the hair bands; actual rock vs pop music with flashy guitar solos.
//Appetite for Destruction is a badass album.
 
2014-01-01 01:10:46 PM

FeedTheCollapse: Wasilla Hillbilly: What Nirvana did was different.

to the mainstream yes. Though I can see how they were revelatory in 1991 the only way to find new music was either the radio, MTV, or randomly purchasing an album , I really don't understand how Nirvana's legacy has really stood up for 20+ years. I mean, they're a good band, but nothing that a dozen or so legitimately groundbreaking bands (who still continue to influence new bands) weren't doing better.

Where Beatles and Nirvana comparisons break down is that while both were popular, The Beatles were a gamechanger on multiple fronts whereas Nirvana's influence is very much limited to Rock only (and in my opinion, irrelevant by the end of the decade.)


Exactly. Nirvana was a good band, redoing what others have done before them. Nothing groundbreaking there. The Stooges did it much better,IMO. But the Beatles influence can be seen in almost every (if not every) musical front there is. This statement is true despite whether or not you like them or their style.
 
2014-01-01 01:14:24 PM

FeedTheCollapse: Where Beatles and Nirvana comparisons break down is that while both were popular, The Beatles were a gamechanger on multiple fronts whereas Nirvana's influence is very much limited to Rock only (and in my opinion, irrelevant by the end of the decade.)


Well the Beatles started as a boy band that did play their own instruments and became more than just a boy band, I'll give them that. The fact that our Boomer parents can't SFTU about them does change that. Lennon getting killed didn't hurt their legendary status.

Nirvana, 5 chords and lyrics that I dare anyone here to interpret....if Kurt hadn't offed himself they're be opening for Bon Jovi at Busch Gardens.
 
2014-01-01 01:19:27 PM

Cortez the Killer: Mugato: Wasilla Hillbilly: What Nirvana did was different. They came out of nowhere and nearly destroyed the hair-band scene overnight

That was Guns n Roses.

Albeit when they were on of them. Axl's hair was pretty gottdamn big in that first video of "Welcome to the Jungle".

/I know, their music was much different than the rest of the hair bands; actual rock vs pop music with flashy guitar solos.
//Appetite for Destruction is a badass album.


Their look was admittedly "hair metal" at the very beginning. For 1/2 of the first video in their first album. But every other band  cut out the hair and makeup shiat when GnR came on the scene and that was 4 years before Nirvana.
 
2014-01-01 01:25:00 PM
I feel like we are failing to understand the line between glam and hair-metal.
 
2014-01-01 02:25:02 PM
I completely enjoyed One Direction's performances recently on Saturday Night Live.

/not a hayta
 
2014-01-01 03:15:52 PM
LewDux * * Smartest * Funniest 2014-01-01 09:14:08 AM Worldwide Albums
Bruno Mars - Unorthodox Jukebox Atlantic - 4,0 million copies Justin Timberlake - The 20/20 Experience RCA - 3,8 million copies Daft Punk - Random Access Memories Daft Life / Columbia - 3,1 million copies
Singles
Blurred Lines - Robin Thicke feat. T.I. & Pharrell Williams Interscope - 11.633.000 points Get Lucky - Daft Punk feat. Pharrell Williams Daft Life / Columbia - 9.065.000 points Thrift Shop - Macklemore & Ryan Lewis feat. Wanz Macklemore - 8.646.000 points
-------------------------------------------------

Dear god, people sure like shiatty music.

/Listen to some good music, people.
 
2014-01-01 04:21:23 PM
Remember the period of time, albeit a short period, when there was debate about which band was the best; the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, or the Dave Clark Five?

I didn't think so.
 
2014-01-01 04:33:42 PM

LewDux: Worldwide

Albums
Bruno Mars - Unorthodox Jukebox
Atlantic - 4,0 million copies
Justin Timberlake - The 20/20 Experience
RCA - 3,8 million copies
Daft Punk - Random Access Memories
Daft Life / Columbia - 3,1 million copies


Singles
Blurred Lines - Robin Thicke feat. T.I. & Pharrell Williams
Interscope - 11.633.000 points
Get Lucky - Daft Punk feat. Pharrell Williams
Daft Life / Columbia - 9.065.000 points
Thrift Shop - Macklemore & Ryan Lewis feat. Wanz
Macklemore - 8.646.000 points


Apparently the secret to success is to throw money at Pharrell Williams until he sings on your album.
 
2014-01-01 04:36:46 PM

DeathByGeekSquad: LewDux: Worldwide

Albums
Bruno Mars - Unorthodox Jukebox
Atlantic - 4,0 million copies
Justin Timberlake - The 20/20 Experience
RCA - 3,8 million copies
Daft Punk - Random Access Memories
Daft Life / Columbia - 3,1 million copies


Singles
Blurred Lines - Robin Thicke feat. T.I. & Pharrell Williams
Interscope - 11.633.000 points
Get Lucky - Daft Punk feat. Pharrell Williams
Daft Life / Columbia - 9.065.000 points
Thrift Shop - Macklemore & Ryan Lewis feat. Wanz
Macklemore - 8.646.000 points

Apparently the secret to success is to throw money at Pharrell Williams until he sings on your album.


Current UK No1: Happy by Pharrell Williams
 
2014-01-01 05:05:04 PM
Mugato:
Well the Beatles started as a boy band that did play their own instruments and became more than just a boy band, I'll give them that. The fact that our Boomer parents can't SFTU about them does change that. Lennon getting killed didn't hurt their legendary status.


I've currently had about 20 Beatles + solo albums cranked on shuffle all day, so I'm having a hearty laugh at your comment.

/40 years old, so solidly Gen-X baby.
//the Beatles are easily the Best of All Time
 
2014-01-01 05:32:26 PM
I will be in attendance at their show in Pasadena next year.

/ 14 year old daughter.
 
2014-01-01 06:49:19 PM
Must be a lot of 14 year old girls out there these days.
 
2014-01-01 07:02:36 PM
This whole "the Beatles were a boy band" shtick is really getting old. Those guys were paying their dues in the European club circuit for several years before they broke big.

No one, except for the band members themselves, put that band together. Did they get help from their manager and label on how to better market the image and sound? Sure, but what wildly successful rock band hasn't. They were as bona fide and authentic as any rock act can get.

Now if someone has a list of shiatty clubs and red light districts that One Direction, Bieber, NSync, Leif Garret, etc..., have cut their teeth in, I'll be right here, though I suspect the main thing all these acts have in common are really aggressive "stage" parents.

/end rant
 
2014-01-01 07:13:10 PM

Stupid Guitar: This whole "the Beatles were a boy band" shtick is really getting old. Those guys were paying their dues in the European club circuit for several years before they broke big.


You know who else performed in clubs before getting big?
 
2014-01-01 08:07:33 PM

Stupid Guitar: This whole "the Beatles were a boy band" shtick is really getting old. Those guys were paying their dues in the European club circuit for several years before they broke big.

No one, except for the band members themselves, put that band together. Did they get help from their manager and label on how to better market the image and sound? Sure, but what wildly successful rock band hasn't. They were as bona fide and authentic as any rock act can get.

Now if someone has a list of shiatty clubs and red light districts that One Direction, Bieber, NSync, Leif Garret, etc..., have cut their teeth in, I'll be right here, though I suspect the main thing all these acts have in common are really aggressive "stage" parents.

/end rant


Also:  the Beatles PLAYED INSTRUMENTS.  "Boy bands" do not, thus rendering the very term a misnomer.
 
2014-01-01 09:21:58 PM

Pants full of macaroni!!: Stupid Guitar: This whole "the Beatles were a boy band" shtick is really getting old. Those guys were paying their dues in the European club circuit for several years before they broke big.

No one, except for the band members themselves, put that band together. Did they get help from their manager and label on how to better market the image and sound? Sure, but what wildly successful rock band hasn't. They were as bona fide and authentic as any rock act can get.

Now if someone has a list of shiatty clubs and red light districts that One Direction, Bieber, NSync, Leif Garret, etc..., have cut their teeth in, I'll be right here, though I suspect the main thing all these acts have in common are really aggressive "stage" parents.

/end rant

Also:  the Beatles PLAYED INSTRUMENTS.  "Boy bands" do not, thus rendering the very term a misnomer.


Not only dd they play their own instruments, they played them very well. I assure you that George was a badass, as was Paul, in several different instruments. Ringo was a farking quartz timepiece. John was a decent rhythm player at best, but a master song writer. It is purely a false comparison to match the Beatles against any modern day "boy band" as mentioned in the post.
 
2014-01-01 09:31:33 PM

Cortez the Killer: Pants full of macaroni!!: Stupid Guitar: This whole "the Beatles were a boy band" shtick is really getting old. Those guys were paying their dues in the European club circuit for several years before they broke big.

No one, except for the band members themselves, put that band together. Did they get help from their manager and label on how to better market the image and sound? Sure, but what wildly successful rock band hasn't. They were as bona fide and authentic as any rock act can get.

Now if someone has a list of shiatty clubs and red light districts that One Direction, Bieber, NSync, Leif Garret, etc..., have cut their teeth in, I'll be right here, though I suspect the main thing all these acts have in common are really aggressive "stage" parents.

/end rant

Also:  the Beatles PLAYED INSTRUMENTS.  "Boy bands" do not, thus rendering the very term a misnomer.

Not only dd they play their own instruments, they played them very well. I assure you that George was a badass, as was Paul, in several different instruments. Ringo was a farking quartz timepiece. John was a decent rhythm player at best, but a master song writer. It is purely a false comparison to match the Beatles against any modern day "boy band" as mentioned in the post.


Ringo was not a great drummer. Sorry.  I agree with the rest of your statement.
 
2014-01-01 10:15:21 PM

Nemo's Brother: Cortez the Killer: Pants full of macaroni!!: Stupid Guitar: This whole "the Beatles were a boy band" shtick is really getting old. Those guys were paying their dues in the European club circuit for several years before they broke big.

No one, except for the band members themselves, put that band together. Did they get help from their manager and label on how to better market the image and sound? Sure, but what wildly successful rock band hasn't. They were as bona fide and authentic as any rock act can get.

Now if someone has a list of shiatty clubs and red light districts that One Direction, Bieber, NSync, Leif Garret, etc..., have cut their teeth in, I'll be right here, though I suspect the main thing all these acts have in common are really aggressive "stage" parents.

/end rant

Also:  the Beatles PLAYED INSTRUMENTS.  "Boy bands" do not, thus rendering the very term a misnomer.

Not only dd they play their own instruments, they played them very well. I assure you that George was a badass, as was Paul, in several different instruments. Ringo was a farking quartz timepiece. John was a decent rhythm player at best, but a master song writer. It is purely a false comparison to match the Beatles against any modern day "boy band" as mentioned in the post.

Ringo was not a great drummer. Sorry.  I agree with the rest of your statement.


"Great" is a subjective term, but I get what you're saying. I know he wasn't some drumming Budda, being seen as exceptional in the same sense as some of his contemporaries, like Keith Moon, Ginger Baker, and others. I did respect his timing, that's all. Some of his work is really brilliant..."Rain" for example.
 
2014-01-02 04:39:16 AM
Best album of 2013,in my opinion of course,was Run the Jewels and it was farking free.
 
2014-01-02 07:58:06 AM

Pants full of macaroni!!: Also:  the Beatles PLAYED INSTRUMENTS.  "Boy bands" do not, thus rendering the very term a misnomer.


www.sickchirpse.com
O RLY?
 
2014-01-02 08:22:30 AM

EyeballKid: Pants full of macaroni!!: Also:  the Beatles PLAYED INSTRUMENTS.  "Boy bands" do not, thus rendering the very term a misnomer.

[www.sickchirpse.com image 760x400]
O RLY?


though they're shiat. I wouldn't call them a boyband either.
 
2014-01-02 10:40:57 AM

FeedTheCollapse: EyeballKid: Pants full of macaroni!!: Also:  the Beatles PLAYED INSTRUMENTS.  "Boy bands" do not, thus rendering the very term a misnomer.

[www.sickchirpse.com image 760x400]
O RLY?

though they're shiat. I wouldn't call them a boyband either.


I guess they are on a technicality; they are a band and they are "boys", as in not men yet.

However, i wouldn't call them a boyband, in the sense of boyband as it is entered into the lexicon.
 
2014-01-02 11:53:48 AM

Cortez the Killer: FeedTheCollapse: EyeballKid: Pants full of macaroni!!: Also:  the Beatles PLAYED INSTRUMENTS.  "Boy bands" do not, thus rendering the very term a misnomer.

[www.sickchirpse.com image 760x400]
O RLY?

though they're shiat. I wouldn't call them a boyband either.

I guess they are on a technicality; they are a band and they are "boys", as in not men yet.

However, i wouldn't call them a boyband, in the sense of boyband as it is entered into the lexicon.


to me, the term "Boy Band" indicates the following traits:

* put together by a label/manager

* little, if any, input to the songwriting process at least initially.

* minimal or more likely no input in any of the album's instrumentation.

there's a bit more to it (these groups are often very vocal-centric), but these are easily the most defining traits. Of those, the only one The Beatles at all come close in is the first point where Ringo replaced Pete Best, but that would ignore the fact that John, Paul, and George were a band well before that change was made. Otherwise, outside of some covers, the Beatles wrote the vast majority of their catalogue (if there was anything written for the Beatles, I can't think of any; regardless, the point still stands) as well as contributed a vast majority of the recorded instrumentation too. I'm under the impression that people equate Beatles with boybands due Beatle-mania, but even that's an incredibly over-simplistic comparison.
 
2014-01-02 12:34:38 PM
Ed Sheeran writes a lot of their songs, and he's a pretty good songwriter.   He must be absolutely rolling in the money at this point.
 
2014-01-02 12:44:56 PM
Gary Barlow (TaKe That) is one of Britain's most successful songwriters, having written thirteen Number 1 singles and twenty three top 10 hits.[6] He is also a six-time recipient of the Ivor Novello Award
 
Displayed 49 of 49 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report