Intriguing question i have to admit. Is it possible? It’s true that Beatles were huge as people were crazy for those guys. Not forgetting the merchandise everywhere such as board games, playing cards, collectibles etc. In simple words they were a phenomenon.
But at the right time could a band emerge and actually surpass the Beatles? The only artist who comes to mind, who has equalled or perhaps surpassed the Beatles is Michael Jackson or Elvis due to their cultural and social impacts, coupled with their record scales.
Please post your comments on the possible coming of a phenomenon that could rival the Beatles. Could it happen? How could it happen?
none,for the simple reason that there can really only be one of anything.there can only be one john lennon,one george harrison,one ringo starr,one paul mccartney,and thus only one beatles.what the beatles did during the time together was unique and can never be duplicated again,just as the magic that they had together was unique and could never be duplicated again and the 4 of them realized that.
do you know how many groups over the last 40 years or so have been called "the next beatles"?too many to count,the jonas brothers are but another in a very long line of groups that have been touted as "the next beatles"do you know where a lot of these bands and artists who were supposed to be "the next beatles"are now?either dead,not making music anymore,broken up,or playing small venues.
perhaps your question should’ve been:is there ever going to be another act that will make the same musical,cultural,and social impact as the beatles?
the answer to that question is in order to for that to happen you have to make an impact outside of selling a lot of records,concert tickets,and merchandise.now thus far the jonas brothers and their ilk haven’t done that yet.
popularity is a relative thing,i mean you can be in the penthouse one minute and the outhouse the next.there could be an artist or a band that gets that level of popularity,but it won’t be the same.also in terms of having the same impact,the answer is no because with the turnover of hit bands and artists,no one seems to be around long enough to really make a lasting impact!
here are a few examples from the beatles own time period:
picture it january,1964-"glad all over"by the dave clark five knocks "i want to hold your hand"off the top of the british charts,soon all the music papers in england were talking about the dave clark five and how they were the"next beatles"or how their sound was the next big thing and stuff like that.then guess what happens?a couple of weeks later "i want to hold your hand"hits number 1 on the US charts,thus skyrocketing the beatles to an unprecedented level of popularity.needless to say all talk about the dave clark five or anyone else being the next beatles was silenced.
i’ll also mention 2 other groups from the beatles own time who were touted as "the next beatles",the byrds and the beau brummels.
do you know how the beau brummels got their name?they chose it because it "sounded british"and because of their sound,they were also touted as "the next beatles".gee,where are they now?not around anymore!
then there are the byrds.i can remember watching a documentary in either 1994 or 1995 about the US response to the beatles,david crosby was interviewed for this documentary,he actually scoffed at the notion that the byrds were america’s answer to the beatles,he said and i quote:"we(the byrds)weren’t americas answer to bugspray,let alone the beatles!"
Now, its official, Joe Jackson and La Toya said they think he was murdered (please read) http://www.sawfnews.com/Gossip/58808.aspx
Where are the royalties going?
What happened with the Music catalogues from MJ and the Beatles, Neverland and the auction things?
(from wikipedia) "One prominent financial issue for him concerned a $270 million loan secured against his music publishing holdings"
Then, what if he diesbefore paying the debts?
——————————————————————————-
My oldest MJ tapes are 27 years old and I seriously don’t even want to buy any of Michael’s after death merchandise because I don’t know who is getting the money. So I will live with my old tapes and cds till this is half cleared.
When u answer please give your source
————-
Trolls etc , please show some respect and do NOT leave negative comments, insults etc. If you can’t answer , just ignore me THANKS
Ghost of Jane Doe , you got it.
————————-
For example :
I mean if he dies before paying that loan…then he lost part of the music catalogues (from his own music and from the Beatles) THEN no matter how many billion royalties are made , they dont go to the Jacksons but to the new owners of the catalogues. (same with neverland, merchandise etc? )
Kara – you are the best!
Theorie: "Jackson became more valuable dead than alive. Alive, he would just create more debt to be shared amongst the creditors, with no more assets to pay them off. Dead before the tour, the banksters could divvy up his tangible assets and use his preexisting insurance to cover the rest"
http://xymphora.blogspot.com/2009/06/michael-jackson-murdered-by-banksters.html#links
Now will AEG really auction the last rehearsals footage ..for $50million?
SONY Pictures bidding
Debbie sues friend over tv interview etc….
will the circus ever end?
Maybe we will never know … today the media says something , tomorrow it changes completely …as Michael once said and sung :
"Just because you read it in a magazine
Or see it on the TV screen
Don’t make it factual, actual
You’re so damn disrespectable" (tabloid junkie)
I wondered the same thing and I was hoping by us purchasing his merchandise the money will go for helping Michael. You ae correct if this is the way it looks right now we should just hold off on purchase of his merchandise until we know where the royalties are going to. Als what about Debbie Rowe? That (insert your personal chosen word for her here) is doing some real damage now and should just crawl back in her hole where Michael left her!
Besides the royalties DESERVE to go to his next of kin (his kids!) but because of their age the royalties will go to the guardian of his children (PLEASE GOD I HOPE IT’S KATHRINE!!) but that is also up in the air and I REFUSE to support or fund Debbie Rowe!
**********EDIT***********
Michael Jackson’s death is now a HOMICIDE case so money will go no where until they find out who did it. Blame isn’t JUST to his doctors since they can’t get a good suspect (except maybe Conrad) but they want to know who had THE MOST interest in his money.
Sony knew without MJ then they would get the rights to all his stuff and even claim to want all the rest of his money and any shares he might of had (IE: To Neverland Ranch)
Speculation as to the cause of Michael Jackson’s death has run the gamut from cardiac arrest due to exhaustion to self-administered accidental overdose to an unintended overdose delivered by an outside party, i.e.
Michael Jackson Homicide: Homicide Not Ruled Out in Michael Jackson Death, Say LAPD
Date: July 12, 2009
Los Angeles, CA
United States of America homicide
As of the 15th…
There seems to be new revelations in the Michael Jackson case every day. Over the weekend Michael’s sister LaToya claimed he has murdered, and now comes word that the LAPD are treating Michael’s case as a homicide.
Several of Michael’s physicians are under investigation, including Dr. Conrad Murray, who was with Michael at the time of his death. Murray is being questioned about the abnormally high dosages of medication he prescribed to Michael.
TMZ reports: “Law enforcement sources say there is already ‘plenty of powerful evidence’ linking Dr. Murray as the person who administered the drug to Jackson. The evidence includes various items found in Jackson’s house, including the Propofol, an IV stand and oxygen tank.
So as it stands right now, homicide and we will NOT figure out what will happen until we find out the reasons WHY someone would have wanted him dead.
Possible reasons IMO: Someone paid off Conrad to kill MJ for financial interests. Conrad did not have MUCH to gain from his death… Sony and AEG does… and if Conrad wants to live to see another day he will sing like a bird in a boiling pot! Also it’s not just Conrad… Dr. Klien was the one who wrote out the perscriptions – only gain is if he really was the father but Debbie denies being the mother! *SHOCK!*. To kill off Michael you have to be getting millions in his death.
Also more update on Debbie Rowe (AKA – A fissure up Michael’s @$$…) "Hell No! I don’t want those kids! They were never mine in the first place!" See a link to her below to findout this juice – and 4 more days till (possible?) court!
Intriguing question i have to admit. Is it possible? It’s true that Beatles were huge as people were crazy for those guys. Not forgetting the merchandise everywhere such as board games, playing cards, collectibles etc. In simple words they were a phenomenon.
But at the right time could a band emerge and actually surpass the Beatles? The only artist who comes to mind, who has equalled or perhaps surpassed the Beatles is Michael Jackson.
Please post your comments on the possible coming of a phenomenon that could rival the Beatles. Could it happen? How could it happen?
Clearly, the Jonas Brothers are on their way to doing that….
I joke. Actually, it would be tough. We want to act like new music is a revolutionary thing, when in reality, it’s very evolutionary. It all traces back to Blues (and other) musicians from prior decades, back to guys like Leadbelly and folk artists.
The Beatles and Stones in part benefited from a convergence of technology and race. Here you had a time when the lines between white and black music were merged, creating something very new and exciting, and there were viable mediums to store (record) and market it.
It’s hard to imagine someone taking what we have now and making it original on the level of the Beatles…given the shear number of people with recording studios (in their basement or at their computer) and how the evolution has given us such crazy hybrids….think of musicians like Beck, what is that? Bluegrass-calypso-country-hip-hop-rock? I don’t know.
PS….the only ‘revolutionary’ music I’d point out is Jazz (IMO), but even that has origins in classical music arrangements, not counting the improvisational stuff.
What’s your favourite album? I love Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band and Yellow Submarine :}
BQ: What other merchandise do you own other than CD’s?
I own a "John Lemon" t-shirt, a poster, which is beautiful, it has all their album covers and other pictures on it, and the Help and Yellow Submarine movie. :}
Dear Forever and Always MJ’s troll, no my friend, it’s you who fails, cos we all know your a troll, BIAAATCH :}
My fave album is the Blue Album, from 67-70. When I get more money, Im gonna buy the Abbey Road shirt at walmart.
Intriguing question i have to admit. Is it possible? It’s true that Beatles were huge as people were crazy for those guys. Not forgetting the merchandise everywhere such as board games, playing cards, collectibles etc. In simple words they were a phenomenon.
But at the right time could a band emerge and actually surpass the Beatles? The only artist who comes to mind, who has equalled or perhaps surpassed the Beatles is Michael Jackson.
Please post your comments on the possible coming of a phenomenon that could rival the Beatles. Could it happen? How could it happen?
i doubt anyone could surpass them. i mean c’mon they were the freaking Beatles :]
if somebody was to surpass them then they would have to have A LOT of talent!!
Intriguing question i have to admit. Is it possible? It’s true that Beatles were huge as people were crazy for those guys. Not forgetting the merchandise everywhere such as board games, playing cards, collectibles etc. In simple words they were a phenomenon.
But at the right time could a band emerge and actually surpass the Beatles? The only artist who comes to mind, who has equalled or perhaps surpassed the Beatles is Michael Jackson.
Please post your comments on the possible coming of a phenomenon that could rival the Beatles. Could it happen? How could it happen?
I don’t think any band will ever reach the level of popularity that The Beatles achieved. My main reasoning for this is that the way people access and listen to music these days is completely different to the way people did it back in the 1960s.
In the 60’s music distribution was extremely centralized. People accessed music through a small number of sources. At the time people could buy music from only a few places (and these places only stocked a few number of bands)… it makes sense that the best band at the time would be extremely popular and reach a large section of the population.
The difference today is not the amount of people listening to music. The proportion of the population that listened to music in the 1960s would be roughly similar to the proportion today. The difference is that we have a large number of people releasing music and very easy access to music (the internet). No longer does the majority of the population just listen to the one thing. Today the audience is completely fragmented. There are less people overall listening to the most popular artists. There are just far to many musical options these days.
That doesn’t mean that bands today can’t be as creative and experimental as The Beatles. It just means that today, even great bands of beatles quality will be unable to reach a proportion of the population that the beatles were able to achieve
So, I’ve been looking for a David Bowie shirt for a really long time, but all of them are either mediums or when I find a small, it’s really expensive.
So I was talking to my friend about why she thinks his merchandise is all so expensive, and she said that it’s because he’s a legend and he’s retired now.
So I said what about The Beatles, they don’t play as a band anymore but their shirts are so cheap. She didn’t have an answer
So, R&P, why do you think David Bowie shirts are so expensive?
MQ: Favorite Bowie song?
MQ2: Favorite Bowie..?
supply and demand… the people willing to get a bowie shirt are willing to pay more. its cool to like the beatles (which doesnt quite give them the credit they deserve,) so if they sell shirts cheap everyone in the world will buy them. Bowie is less popular, the people who want one of his shirts will pay more for them.
this is my theory,
MQ: probably Suffragette City, the whole album Rise and Fall is great.
MQ2: Favorite Bowie… Persona! Ziggy Stardust. IMO Bowie was best between Hunky Dory and Station to Station, but Ziggy Stardust, Aladdin Sane, and Diamond Dogs really took the cake
Are you a fan of the Jonas Brothers?
I am a 53 yr old female and i love the jonas brothers I base my whole life around them. I have all of their music, posters, clothes, dvds, activity books, ticket stubs, OFFICIAL fan photos, OFFICIAL and unofficial bootlegs. I HAVE EVERYTHING!!!! I go to all their concerts and scream at them Hysterically. I try to get in the first row so i can hear their dreamy songs. They are better than the Beatles. One day my husband got sick of my obsession and packed up our 8 kids and left me but I didn’t care. I just sat and listened to my Jonas Brother cds all day. It really made me feel better. My friends don’t hang out with me anymore. I used to go to the mall and drunk and holler at hot men but now i spend all of my money on Jonas brothers concerts and merchandise. I can barely pay the rent or eat. I love the Jonas brothers that much. They are the best thing ever. Why can’t they understand my love for this band?? Can they see that this is everything to me?? I love them so much. I tried to meet them but they said they were too busy. They were lying. Why don’t they want to meet me? I need to know?? Are guys fans like me??
….Someone get the gun.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWtHEmVjVw8
In the days before music videos the only access people had to music was either on the radio or by going to concerts. The likelihood is that you wouldn’t go to a concert unless you’d heard the band and liked their music anyway. This meant there was less focus on a band/singer’s appearance and more on their music, some were lucky enough to have both, ie. The Beatles.
The creation of music videos meant that musicians were more than just voices, they now needed to look the part as well. Add to that the growing part technology has to play in the music industry these days. The whole industry seems to have gone completely the other way with most new artists being who can’t really sing but look really good on videos/merchandise.
Your thoughts?
Ironically, "The Buggles – Video Killed The Radio Star" was the first ever video showed on MTV!
BQ. Why are some people so scared of mice, which are much smaller than us, when no one seems to be scared of Micky Mouse, who is bigger than us?
hello, mr. tambourine man!! i tried to ask a question similar to this one. but it was in polls & surveys (know one ever takes anything seriously there) & i spelled everything wrong so know one toke my question seriously & a troll deleted it… now i’m not really old enough to know what it was like back then (know offense) but i would agree with you. there’s to much light on weather or not the ‘band’ is attractive. if then can get the target audience with there look rather then there music. shere back then some band did have that hole attractive aspect going on, like the beatles were freaken’ adorable, zeppelin were sex gods & jim morrison had those ultra tight leather paints……….anyway they all had something more to go on the just looks. they had talent. i whole heartily agree with you. mtv made it more about the looks of the artist, then there voices or talent. then with that it escalated into ‘bands’ like the jones brothers who only get what they have on there looks & what very little machine amped talent they have because that’s where the company’s aim audience lay’s. it all started with mtv & then that screwed up logic spreaded to the record company’s. that’s how i think the music company’s ruined everything. by making it to much about selling the artist themselves rather then selling the artist’s music. i 100% agree with you mr. tambourin man.
bq: i really have know beefs with mice. i actually think there cute. cockroaches are what i’m afraid of. there icky. =)
Has anyone else noticed that the society is using peace signs and peace merchandise as a fashion symbol? I ask some people that i see wearing it if they actually believe in it and most of them just say, "No i just like the style" Peace is not a trend, its a belief. And yet the only music now that talks about peace is when the person at the end is "signing out" of their songs by going, "Peace!" and using the hand symbol… Does this bother anyone else but me? Its almost as if they are trying to imitate the 60s but in a completely worse way. Considering the amount of technology there is people are refusing to be as creative as they were back then anyways. And the Jonas Brothers- Beatles comments…. I mean in society today who would you consider has made the biggest impact on the world when it comes to music…. Like a John Lennon impact? surely not Eminem, and NEVER the jobros.
I guess this is kind of just a pole, but really if im 14 and can realize it… idk i guess im just wondering if im alone here. Anyone else noticing this?
You would be surprised how many people are blind conformists/ wear and do things they do not know about or what they mean.
Its a part of society ignorance. This isnt the first symbol nor the last to be like this.