i was recently watching a documentary about george harrison and it showed some clips of the old

beatlemania days, as i was part of that era i have never taken much notice of it but looking at it now

i can't believe how absurd it all looks,my old man always said that it was 'brainwashing' and now i

have to admit that it looks very 'stage managed' does anyone on here know why those girls were

behaving like that, i suppose all this stuff started in the rock and roll era and its still going on today

but theres something that doesnt seem quite right about this sort of behaviour in so-called

civilized societies.

This was mass manipulation plain and simple.

They were overrated from day 1.........and still are.

I've seen footage that looks insane. But I've always put it down to them being the first and original worldwide superstars of music. People hadn't seen anything like it before, and the mania displayed by the young female fans wherever they made appearances was infectious. They just wound each other up to a boiling point.

Since them, possibly only MJ has matched the breadth of their fame, but not even he could match the hysteria that they generated in their prime.

nd33 said:

I've seen footage that looks insane. But I've always put it down to them being the first and original worldwide superstars of music. People hadn't seen anything like it before, and the mania displayed by the young female fans wherever they made appearances was infectious. They just wound each other up to a boiling point.

Maybe it was on a smaller scale, but Elvis Presley & Frank Sinatra had similar reactions from people before the Fabs. So did the silent film actor Rudolph Valentino.

I don't think they were manipulated or it was staged in any way. Even Justin Bieber gets similar reaction from his fans these days. What's the big deal here? It's only a bunch of young girls.

[Edited 10/27/12 13:03pm]

norbertslimeball said:

i was recently watching a documentary about george harrison and it showed some clips of the old

beatlemania days, as i was part of that era i have never taken much notice of it but looking at it now

i can't believe how absurd it all looks,my old man always said that it was 'brainwashing' and now i

have to admit that it looks very 'stage managed' does anyone on here know why those girls were

behaving like that, i suppose all this stuff started in the rock and roll era and its still going on today

but theres something that doesnt seem quite right about this sort of behaviour in so-called

civilized societies.

I commend you for not taking much notice of that madness when it was actually happening.

It's like not noticing Michael Mania back in 1983.

BTW yeah the Frank Sinatra bobby-soxer thing was reminiscent, and some of those girls were found out to be plants, hired to get the crowds in a frenzy.

I have grown to appreciate The Beatles more as an adult then I ever did an an adolescent. Over-rated? Yes. But like Tupac Shakur they're intrigueing subjects of study.

Definitely manipulation. Elvis and the Rolling Stones were far more exciting. I still don't get the Beatles' hype the way it was then. The 1960s was a strange time.

Timmy84 said:

Definitely manipulation. Elvis and the Rolling Stones were far more exciting. I still don't get the Beatles' hype the way it was then. The 1960s was a strange time.

I would've been a Motown-head all the way!

CynicKill said:

Timmy84 said:

Definitely manipulation. Elvis and the Rolling Stones were far more exciting. I still don't get the Beatles' hype the way it was then. The 1960s was a strange time.

I would've been a Motown-head all the way!

Shit I know I would've anyways.

I dunno many of there songs that make them so great

funkycat00 said:

I dunno many of there songs that make them so great

I'm partial to "Love Me Do", "Yesterday" and "Let It Be".

Oh I like "A Day In The Life" too.

Timmy84 said:

Elvis and the Rolling Stones were far more exciting.

I don't think you have to do anything (like dancing) to be exciting to people. Girls screamed for Pat Boone, Frankie Avalon, Bobby Darin, Bobby Sherman, & the Bay City Rollers and they didn't do anything interesting as far as performing goes. Mostly just stood there and sang.

MickyDolenz said:

Timmy84 said:

Elvis and the Rolling Stones were far more exciting.

I don't think you have to do anything (like dancing) to be exciting to people. Girls screamed for Pat Boone, Frankie Avalon, Bobby Darin, Bobby Sherman, & the Bay City Rollers and they didn't do anything interesting as far as performing goes. Mostly just stood there and sang.

I know lol I mean girls screamed for Sinatra and Bing Crosby. Elvis was among the first mainstream entertainers to bring some sort of dancing to the music industry in the way he did it though.

But it's argueable that Elvis pretty much checked out during Beatlemania to pull a Streisand and do one lousy movie after another.

It wasn't until his spectacular comeback show on TV when he blew the dust off.

They seem to be overrated just because almost officially considered the greatest musical act ever.
Some people argue with this primarily because of the spirit of contradiction ..
Yes, not everyone likes the Beatles music, but then again I have not seen in my life more fans of any other artist. Now, more than 40 years later, they are still most beloved artists in the world.
I love the Beatles, I think they are the greatest, their songs are very melodic and pleasant, John and Paul - amazing songwriters.

Timmy84 said:

MickyDolenz said:

I don't think you have to do anything (like dancing) to be exciting to people. Girls screamed for Pat Boone, Frankie Avalon, Bobby Darin, Bobby Sherman, & the Bay City Rollers and they didn't do anything interesting as far as performing goes. Mostly just stood there and sang.

I know lol I mean girls screamed for Sinatra and Bing Crosby. Elvis was among the first mainstream entertainers to bring some sort of dancing to the music industry in the way he did it though.

Other than actors in movies (Gene Kelly), was singers/bands dancing really all that common back then? Some doo wop groups may have done simple steps, but most of them stood there from the footage I've seen. The Beatles might look boring to a modern audience that grew up with acts who do aerobics in music videos or bands that have light shows and pyro in their concerts. Elvis' moves were considered shocking at the time and so he was shown from the waist up on TV. He was called burlesque and vulgar. Married people on TV shows slept in twin beds and women cleaned the house in heels, dresses, and pearls. That should explain the culture right there.

[Edited 10/27/12 15:43pm]

Timmy84 said:

Definitely manipulation. Elvis and the Rolling Stones were far more exciting. I still don't get the Beatles' hype the way it was then. The 1960s was a strange time.

Interesting...though Elvis had the similar reactions among his fans. For Elvis I think his look was a huge part of it but probably not for the Beatles lol. Do you think this sort of fanatic reactions have something to do with how the artist treats his fans? Or maybe it's that special sensitivity in their music or personality that makes girls go absolutely crazy for them?

Like for example I think Prince was immensely exciting and everyone knows he was one of the biggest stars in the 80's and yet I don't see a swarm of female fans fainting over him ilke they did in MJ concerts...

[Edited 10/27/12 15:46pm]

Emancipation89 said:

Timmy84 said:

Definitely manipulation. Elvis and the Rolling Stones were far more exciting. I still don't get the Beatles' hype the way it was then. The 1960s was a strange time.

Interesting...though Elvis had the similar reactions among his fans. For Elvis I think his look was a huge part of it but probably not for the Beatles lol. Do you think this sort of fanatic reactions have something to do with how the artist treats his fans? Or maybe it's that special sensitivity in their music or personality that makes girls go absolutely crazy for them?

Like for example I think Prince was immensely exciting and everyone knows he was one of the biggest stars in the 80's and yet I don't see a swarm of female fans fainting over him ilke they did in MJ concerts...

[Edited 10/27/12 15:46pm]

It's possible the reactions to anyone after Elvis definitely reflects how people react to "heartthrobs" now like the twinks in "One Direction".

CynicKill said:

I commend you for not taking much notice of that madness when it was actually happening.

It's like not noticing Michael Mania back in 1983.

BTW yeah the Frank Sinatra bobby-soxer thing was reminiscent, and some of those girls were found out to be plants, hired to get the crowds in a frenzy.

I have grown to appreciate The Beatles more as an adult then I ever did an an adolescent. Over-rated? Yes. But like Tupac Shakur they're intrigueing subjects of study.

I wish I knew what that was like back then. Was it anything like the news of his death?

[Edited 10/27/12 16:20pm]

Timmy84 said:

Definitely manipulation. Elvis and the Rolling Stones were far more exciting. I still don't get the Beatles' hype the way it was then. The 1960s was a strange time.

hmm to me you dont have a Rolling Stones without the Beatles in any way, they were started later and almost as a rebellion to the Beatles in a way, kind of like How Nirvana was a rebellion to the "hair metal" days thats what they were, so to me you wouldnt have nirvana if it wasnt for bands like poison and trixter, and then there is just the influence the beatles had as "creators", i do agree on the MANIA part but honestly from 1965 till the end with Abbey Road, that work and that creation and growth is to me still head and shoulders over any artist then and now, plus all the others that were "creating" were doing it off them, the beach boys "pet sounds" was made because of "Sgt Pepper". So i get the MANIA overrated thing, and i too im not crazy about the work on the first few records, but come rubber soul to abbey road, growth all the way, mainly because they were 3 strong members in that process, no band really has had that, i mean John paul and george could easily be equally creative on thier own and in many cases were stronger, to me Mick Jagger is not a strong solo artist, though Keith is better.

lastdecember said:

Timmy84 said:

Definitely manipulation. Elvis and the Rolling Stones were far more exciting. I still don't get the Beatles' hype the way it was then. The 1960s was a strange time.

hmm to me you dont have a Rolling Stones without the Beatles in any way, they were started later and almost as a rebellion to the Beatles in a way, kind of like How Nirvana was a rebellion to the "hair metal" days thats what they were, so to me you wouldnt have nirvana if it wasnt for bands like poison and trixter, and then there is just the influence the beatles had as "creators", i do agree on the MANIA part but honestly from 1965 till the end with Abbey Road, that work and that creation and growth is to me still head and shoulders over any artist then and now, plus all the others that were "creating" were doing it off them, the beach boys "pet sounds" was made because of "Sgt Pepper". So i get the MANIA overrated thing, and i too im not crazy about the work on the first few records, but come rubber soul to abbey road, growth all the way, mainly because they were 3 strong members in that process, no band really has had that, i mean John paul and george could easily be equally creative on thier own and in many cases were stronger, to me Mick Jagger is not a strong solo artist, though Keith is better.

The British Invasion, I believe, was gonna happen anyway. There were too many British bands that were making their way over here. I guess the Beatles inadvertently pushed that forward faster than had been normally thought. They can't be compared. The Beatles were four solo artists in a band, the Rolling Stones were always gonna be a band.

Timmy84 said:

lastdecember said:

hmm to me you dont have a Rolling Stones without the Beatles in any way, they were started later and almost as a rebellion to the Beatles in a way, kind of like How Nirvana was a rebellion to the "hair metal" days thats what they were, so to me you wouldnt have nirvana if it wasnt for bands like poison and trixter, and then there is just the influence the beatles had as "creators", i do agree on the MANIA part but honestly from 1965 till the end with Abbey Road, that work and that creation and growth is to me still head and shoulders over any artist then and now, plus all the others that were "creating" were doing it off them, the beach boys "pet sounds" was made because of "Sgt Pepper". So i get the MANIA overrated thing, and i too im not crazy about the work on the first few records, but come rubber soul to abbey road, growth all the way, mainly because they were 3 strong members in that process, no band really has had that, i mean John paul and george could easily be equally creative on thier own and in many cases were stronger, to me Mick Jagger is not a strong solo artist, though Keith is better.

The British Invasion, I believe, was gonna happen anyway. There were too many British bands that were making their way over here. I guess the Beatles inadvertently pushed that forward faster than had been normally thought. They can't be compared. The Beatles were four solo artists in a band, the Rolling Stones were always gonna be a band.

Yeah i agree on the 4 solo artists and i think thats what was their strength, they were all growing within and had that creative push out of the band, i dont think the Stones could ever have had that, mainly because of Jaggers Presence overshadowing the others, granted all great at their work, but its very much like Bon Jovi, Jon is the focus, and its not till the last few years that Richie was appreciated by NON-fans as a great player and writer, and the others too. So true u cant compare bands, outside of them being part of a wave at the same time, i do feel the Beatles kept it going and made it "lucrative" so every label wanted a "brit", just like in the 80's when bon jovi and motley crue were the icons of rock/metal all the labels went out looking for the next thing which lead to the Warrants and Wingers of the day.

lastdecember said:

Timmy84 said:

The British Invasion, I believe, was gonna happen anyway. There were too many British bands that were making their way over here. I guess the Beatles inadvertently pushed that forward faster than had been normally thought. They can't be compared. The Beatles were four solo artists in a band, the Rolling Stones were always gonna be a band.

Yeah i agree on the 4 solo artists and i think thats what was their strength, they were all growing within and had that creative push out of the band, i dont think the Stones could ever have had that, mainly because of Jaggers Presence overshadowing the others, granted all great at their work, but its very much like Bon Jovi, Jon is the focus, and its not till the last few years that Richie was appreciated by NON-fans as a great player and writer, and the others too. So true u cant compare bands, outside of them being part of a wave at the same time, i do feel the Beatles kept it going and made it "lucrative" so every label wanted a "brit", just like in the 80's when bon jovi and motley crue were the icons of rock/metal all the labels went out looking for the next thing which lead to the Warrants and Wingers of the day.

You gotta thank Brian Epstein for the promotion too.

JasonWill1980 said:

CynicKill said:

I commend you for not taking much notice of that madness when it was actually happening.

It's like not noticing Michael Mania back in 1983.

BTW yeah the Frank Sinatra bobby-soxer thing was reminiscent, and some of those girls were found out to be plants, hired to get the crowds in a frenzy.

I have grown to appreciate The Beatles more as an adult then I ever did an an adolescent. Over-rated? Yes. But like Tupac Shakur they're intrigueing subjects of study.

I wish I knew what that was like back then. Was it anything like the news of his death?

[Edited 10/27/12 16:20pm]

Let's just put it this way; EVERYONE seemed to love Michael Jackson. It was much more then when he died.

I saw a documentary on The Girl Groups and I almost cried when they said the british invasion killed that scene. I'm a sucker for girl groups.

lastdecember said:

So i get the MANIA overrated thing, and i too im not crazy about the work on the first few records, but come rubber soul to abbey road, growth all the way,

A lot of people today forget that some people listen to music as entertainment. They don't care about "innovation" or fancy recording tricks. There's many early "yeah yeah yeah" Beatles fans that don't like their later records. It's magazines like Rolling Stone that made rock music "important" and that music is supposed to have some sort of deep meaning and sound. Pre-Beatles, the mainstream adult audience was listening to showtunes, crooner pop like Harry Belefonte & Johnny Mathis, and watching Lawrence Welk on TV. The teen idol singers weren't really much different than the adult pop. So it wasn't offensive to parents who bought the records. That's the reason rock n roll was shocking in the mid 1950's. R&B/blues wasn't as clean cut as the mainstream music, but they sold to a different audience in general.

Timmy84 said:

lastdecember said:

Yeah i agree on the 4 solo artists and i think thats what was their strength, they were all growing within and had that creative push out of the band, i dont think the Stones could ever have had that, mainly because of Jaggers Presence overshadowing the others, granted all great at their work, but its very much like Bon Jovi, Jon is the focus, and its not till the last few years that Richie was appreciated by NON-fans as a great player and writer, and the others too. So true u cant compare bands, outside of them being part of a wave at the same time, i do feel the Beatles kept it going and made it "lucrative" so every label wanted a "brit", just like in the 80's when bon jovi and motley crue were the icons of rock/metal all the labels went out looking for the next thing which lead to the Warrants and Wingers of the day.

You gotta thank Brian Epstein for the promotion too.

And George Martin, not for the promotion but for having the ear and knowing what they should do, George doesnt get mentioned enough in their work, but in the later years it was him adapting and growing with them, which is the mark of a real PRODUCER, its the opposite of what Dream and Timbaland do today with artists.

MickyDolenz said:

lastdecember said:

So i get the MANIA overrated thing, and i too im not crazy about the work on the first few records, but come rubber soul to abbey road, growth all the way,

A lot of people today forget that some people listen to music as entertainment. They don't care about "innovation" or fancy recording tricks. There's many early "yeah yeah yeah" Beatles fans that don't like their later records. It's magazines like Rolling Stone that made rock music "important" and that music is supposed to have some sort of deep meaning and sound. Pre-Beatles, the mainstream adult audience was listening to showtunes, crooner pop like Harry Belefonte & Johnny Mathis, and watching Lawrence Welk on TV. The teen idol singers weren't really much different than the adult pop. So it wasn't offensive to parents who bought the records. That's the reason rock n roll was shocking in the mid 1950's. R&B/blues wasn't as clean cut as the mainstream music, but they sold to a different audience in general.

Well thats thing too, i mean people sometimes slight the early 80's like 80-82 as the "down years" where nothing was happening in the mainstream, but to me artists like Air Supply were very important to the craft of writing a love song, that is an art form though many shrug it off as nothing important, and the reason they still sell records worldwide and tour, while others have long since lost their way.

I agree on the Beatle thing, but to me that always happens with MANIA prince had PURPLE RAIN and his shining time, and then by Sign O The Times, you had an artist who sold 10-20 million selling 1-3 million, he was growing but people wanted purple rain part 2, or just not to be challenged. Artists grow, while others tread water, The Beatles had that phase where everything released charted high, as the years went along, the "loveable" guys soon were these dangerous pot smokers, i think way too much is made of that period and DRUGS in that band, i dont think what they were doing was anymore than bands then and now, in fact i wouldnt be surprised if the Beatles did almost no drugs, that wasnt the reason for the growth. Some pot or LSD may make u have an idea but what u create on that drug is shit, and u cant function daily on it, so as much the mania was overrated their drug use and that being the SOLE reason for the later creation is nuts.

I still think it's a miracle what the producer did with the "Sgt. Pepper" album with the limited technology they had.

CynicKill said:

I still think it's a miracle what the producer did with the "Sgt. Pepper" album with the limited technology they had.

George Martin is a genius.