independent and unofficial
Prince fan community
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Music: Non-Prince > Would the Beatles have survived the '80s?
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 2 of 2 <12
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Reply #30 posted 01/29/06 10:19pm

meow85

avatar

brothaluv said:

I think the Beatles would've fared better in the 80s than the Stones. And that's based on notoriety alone. The Beatles are considered patriarchs in the music industry. So any cd released would've been a hit. Of course, the same holds true for the Stones. They release albums that sell on the basis of who they are...When was their last hit? Start Me Up? Harlem Shuffle?

Can't speak about globally or even nationally, but locally, the Stones' new song "Rain Fall Down" has been HUGE! Almost every time I turn on the rock station I end up hearing it sooner or later. Which I don't mind at all -I love it!
"A Watcher scoffs at gravity!"
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #31 posted 01/29/06 10:21pm

Moonbeam

avatar

DynamicSavior said:

Really. What's so great about them? I don't get it.


You're opening up a can of worms here. Trust me- I've learned the hard way!

Personally, I'm glad that weren't around in the 80s.
Feel free to join in the Prince Album Poll 2018! Let'a celebrate his legacy by counting down the most beloved Prince albums, as decided by you!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #32 posted 01/29/06 10:29pm

meow85

avatar

I don't know. I think the Beatles could have gone one for years later than they did, but after a while they'd become a nostalgia act that people flock to see because it's perpetually the last time they'll perform before they break up/die of old age.


I think it's better that they broke up when they were at the top of the game and became legends instead of sticking it out and fading away to "where are they now?" status.
"A Watcher scoffs at gravity!"
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #33 posted 01/30/06 7:53am

dammme

avatar

PurpleJedi said:

So I posed this question to my wife, and she is confident that they certainly WOULD have survived the '80s and had numerous hits.

"The Beatles had a knack for being at the leading edge of music" is what she said, so if The Rolling Stones have managed to survive, then The Beatles would have THRIVED.

The question is: would they have gone "New Wave" or "Punk"...?


I think they would be closer to ABBA than punk or funk.
"Todo está bien chévere" Stevie
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #34 posted 01/30/06 8:09am

Novabreaker

Hah, imagine The Beatles with reverberated / pitched down snare drums, synclavier programming and choreographed dance moves. biggrin But they always had that "na, na, na, naah" -anyway hmmm
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #35 posted 01/30/06 7:27pm

Spats

It's a good thing the Beatles split while they were on top. If not they would have likley just started churning out crap like the Stones have done for years and years. This way people can look at the Beatles through Rose Colored glasses.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #36 posted 01/31/06 4:17pm

TheAstonishing

avatar

rialb said:

I really belive that by the '80s the Beatles would have fallen very far from their peak. It's pretty inconceivable to think that they could have maintained great songwriting for 25 years. I love the Beatles but the fact that they broke up is a big part of their appeal. They never made terrible music. But over a long span of time I think they would have made many bad songs/albums.

As others have pointed out by the '80s the three surviving Beatles weren't exactly innovators. They were basically nostalia acts who had the odd hit.



ahem.... "You Know My Name (Look Up The Number)"
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #37 posted 01/31/06 4:23pm

andyman91

avatar

TheAstonishing said:

rialb said:

I really belive that by the '80s the Beatles would have fallen very far from their peak. It's pretty inconceivable to think that they could have maintained great songwriting for 25 years. I love the Beatles but the fact that they broke up is a big part of their appeal. They never made terrible music. But over a long span of time I think they would have made many bad songs/albums.

As others have pointed out by the '80s the three surviving Beatles weren't exactly innovators. They were basically nostalia acts who had the odd hit.



ahem.... "You Know My Name (Look Up The Number)"


That wasn't exactly intended to be a new Strawberry Fields, though.

That song, to me, shows how the Beatles covered nearly every musical possibility. When they're talking baby-talk "know me number two..." you can see they weren't afraid of ANYTHING!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #38 posted 01/31/06 9:56pm

Meloh9

avatar

only if they put out an album like Around the World In A Day
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #39 posted 02/01/06 12:26am

TheAstonishing

avatar

Meloh9 said:

only if they put out an album like Around the World In A Day




LOL.... you mean putting out a Beatles pastiche album?
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #40 posted 02/01/06 6:24am

Sdldawn

Meloh9 said:

only if they put out an album like Around the World In A Day


I always thought of that album as being heavily influenced by the beatles.. paticularly Sgt. Pepper..


thats just me tho
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #41 posted 02/01/06 7:43am

dammme

avatar

andyman91 said:

TheAstonishing said:




ahem.... "You Know My Name (Look Up The Number)"


That wasn't exactly intended to be a new Strawberry Fields, though.

That song, to me, shows how the Beatles covered nearly every musical possibility. When they're talking baby-talk "know me number two..." you can see they weren't afraid of ANYTHING!


"You know my name" seems to me a second rate material for The Beatles. By the way, I found out just recently that Past Masters V. II have a lot of second rate material for Beatles standars: The Inner Light, Hey Jude, Revolution, You Know My Name... I mean, they were already nostalgia somehow in their final years... Especially, Hey Jude, thats not rock if you compare with other groups production in those years: Hendrix, the Stones,The Velvet Underground.Anyhow, I love Abbey Road, no matters the low points of Paul on the A Side.
"Todo está bien chévere" Stevie
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #42 posted 02/01/06 9:40am

Meloh9

avatar

Sdldawn said:

Meloh9 said:

only if they put out an album like Around the World In A Day


I always thought of that album as being heavily influenced by the beatles..





thats because it was
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #43 posted 02/01/06 9:55am

andyman91

avatar

Sdldawn said:

Meloh9 said:

only if they put out an album like Around the World In A Day


I always thought of that album as being heavily influenced by the beatles.. paticularly Sgt. Pepper..


thats just me tho


I don't think you're the only one
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #44 posted 02/01/06 2:51pm

TonyVanDam

avatar

Stax said:

I suppose they would have fared about as well as the Rolling Stones did in the 80's.



nod
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 2 of 2 <12
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Music: Non-Prince > Would the Beatles have survived the '80s?