Previous Next Index Thread

Re: Bigger than the Beatles

 John Hopkin wrote:
 > Every group that can afford to hire 50 girls to scream for them will
 > be compared to the fabs. 20 #1 singles in a row will not make a group
 > the next Beatles.
 Indeed. Not only has no band shown any sign of managing that feat
 (cheese-pop artistes such as Kylie Minogue in her Stock Aitken Waterman
 phase, or, latterly, Take That; in the US, think of Mariah Carey; have come
 closest), but even if they did they'd likely have sold less units than the
 Beatles - one of the legacies of the Fabs was to shift the emphasis of the
 pop market from singles to albums.
 > There are just too many aspects of popular culture
 > for any new band to influence, and it's pretty obvious that "Rock
 > Stars" just don't have that same hold on the public they once did. It
 > seems in this country at least, that basketball players have more
 > influence than Oasis or any other currently hot group.
 That phenomenon applies over here too. Most pop stars have a very short shelf
 life now, and have little social impact. The last great "pop movement" to have
 any consequence over here was the rave scene which culminated in a huge festival
 at Castlemorton, Hereford and Worcester, and which precipated anti-rave clauses
 in the Criminal Justice Act. Prior to that, IMHO, one has to look back to heavy
 metal, punk, and then the Beatles/60s to find pop movements which have had any
 great hold on the public or sections thereof...
    "My insecurity so much a part of me leaps off the pages of numerous
          diaries" (Lush) "Memories - you can't trust them" (KLF)     G0LRI