Peter Buck on Macca

[beatleball]

Well, I'm back!... I think that RAM is an excelent album, one of my favourite macca albums,... when someone listen to macca's music or beatles music,... all the rest sucks, Oasis, Coldplay or whatever!

[Gastro (gone)]

disagree dude.. if oasis were around in the 60s they'd be as big as the beatles or on the same pedestal..

if the beatles were around today they'd be faring the same as Oasis today.. mind you Oasis during the Britpop boom in the 90s Oasis were the leader of the pack and were in fact bigger than the Beatles at one point... it's all about trends and what's in at the time...

now before I start being flamed I'm talking about popularity here not saying Oasis is better than the Beatles...

[Steve-o]

Well...if Oasis was around in the 60's they wouldn't have the entire Beatle catalogue to emulate and basically copy and the benefit of retrospection. Maybe they'd come up with something original. I happen to like their early stuff, since it reminds so much of the Beatles. I like Noel, but Liam----he makes me gag. I love the unplugged when Liam didn't perform.

[Gastro (gone)]

Steve material is irrelevant.. if u were a decent Brit group from the 60's you would have been big because that's what the scene was at the time, notice how the scene changed in the mid 60s with blues based harder rock like Led Zeppellin, Jimi Hednrix etc.. the Beatles adapted whilst still being true to their music which is why they were still at the top of the heap.. sure it depends on whether Oasis would have had decent material but I'm using Oasis as an example to illustrate my point..

[Steve-o]

I'm sorry, Gastro, but you lost me on that one. How can material be irrelevant? I'm not being a smart-ass (this time, lol). Please explain.

[Gastro (gone)]

I mean irreleavnt as in marketing a Britney or an Aguilera today. They have the look, they have the MTV coverage, what comes out of their mouths is "irrelevant". Record companies reinvented the teen sensation genre and are riding that wave until the next one comes along.

Do you think if the Beatles came out today they would have caused the same mass hysteria?

[Steve-o]

If they came out today, and were as different, fresh, and totally unlike anything we had ever heard before (just like way back when), most certainly. That was the key. It wasn't just 8 year olds like me....my MOM AND DAD were amazed at the energy, the songs, the harmony, and the sexuality. My Grandma thought they were amazing (up until pepper---she just couldn't get into it, lol).

It was a much different world back then. And I have to tell you that the funk we were all in over here after the assisnation of our president played some part in it. They lifted us up at a time when we needed something besides Philly boys singing crappy songs, the pre-thoughtful Beach Boys and a movie soundtrack hobbled Elvis in decline. That's my take on it anayway.

[Gastro (gone)]

See I don't think that could happen in this day and age. People like Madonna and Michael Jackson are (or were) huge but you never saw the hysteria at the same level as the Beatles.

The Beatles appealed to all people, tenny boppers, the young, the old, intellectuals etc.. I think the demographics today are so diverse that it would be almost impossible to replicate that. Oasis in England in 1996 were the closest its ever got. I don't think you can get bigger than what Oasis did in England in the mid 90s in todays age.

Think about it this way, if you sold 2 million records in 1965 it would be like selling 20 million records in 1995. How many people sell 20 million today? I can't think of anyone...

[Steve-o]

You said "mass-hysteria" and you didnt mention sales numbers. That's a whole different thing to me in this discussion.

I said:

"If they came out today, and were as different, fresh, and totally unlike anything we had ever heard before (just like way back when), most certainly."

That's a big "if" since "original-fresh" music is alot more scarce today than it was 40 years ago, of course. Seems like it's all been done before. Their mass appeal was unreal.

[admiralvanderbilt]

One thing The Beatles had was at least two individuals capable of standing out front and leading the thing. I'm not saying that's what made them - but it was a factor.

A group without a single leader / lead singer is a very unusual thing. It remains so to this day - I can't really think of a comparable example to The Beatles. Fleetwood Mac comes to mind but, er, it's hardly the same...

I'd love to see a band be able to do it now..