Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Lizzie_Zoom on 24 April 2013, 18:56:00
-
JLS,the boy band, are breaking up! :'( :'( :'(
Why is it now that no group stays together like the old ones did, like the Beatles, Stones, The Who, Status Quo, etc, etc?
A case of too much money and fame too quickly? I wonder ;)
-
Because they're crap ::) don't write their own songs and are manipulated by the industry. Boy Bands my arse
If you want real harmony and originality Four Tops, Temptations etc Levi Stubbs and David Ruffin.... SUBLIME TALENT :y :y :y :y
-
come on now Lizzie, are you really comparing the likes of JLS (or Just a Load of S*** as some of us oldies may refer to them ;D) and No Direction to the Stones and the Beatles? As for the longevity bit, well the Beatles only ran for about 8yrs proper from 1962-69 and as for the Stones or Bowie, Im not sure that longevity is really such a good thing :-\ :y
-
JLS,the boy band, are breaking up! :'( :'( :'(
Why is it now that no group stays together like the old ones did, like the Beatles, Stones, The Who, Status Quo, etc, etc?
A case of too much money and fame too quickly? I wonder ;)
Look at you with your boy bands.
There done lizzie :y Its time for you plan B ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/70807181/justin.jpg)
-
Woohoo thank god for that ;D ;D ;)
-
GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
RIDDANCE
-
Obviously milked the cash cow for all its worth now off to count their winnings :D ;D
-
come on now Lizzie, are you really comparing the likes of JLS (or Just a Load of S*** as some of us oldies may refer to them ;D) and No Direction to the Stones and the Beatles? As for the longevity bit, well the Beatles only ran for about 8yrs proper from 1962-69 and as for the Stones or Bowie, Im not sure that longevity is really such a good thing :-\ :y
No I am certainly not! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
But JLS and their like are the closest modern youngsters will ever get to seeing contemporary "greats", poor souls!
The other point is that the old great groups went through a form of 'apprentiship', travelling around in battered vans and going from one dodgy venue to another, with a little sex, violence and rock 'n' roll. The Beatles, after going through various changes of identity and personnel mix from The Quarrymen in 1957, appeared near to their final line up in August 1960, and just kept going until 1970. Who of the current "pop stars" go through that artistic development?
When modern groups go, I agree that they are 'a product' that has reached it's shelf life and run out of ideas! ::) ::) ;)
-
come on now Lizzie, are you really comparing the likes of JLS (or Just a Load of S*** as some of us oldies may refer to them ;D) and No Direction to the Stones and the Beatles? As for the longevity bit, well the Beatles only ran for about 8yrs proper from 1962-69 and as for the Stones or Bowie, Im not sure that longevity is really such a good thing :-\ :y
No I am certainly not! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
But JLS and their like are the closest modern youngsters will ever get to seeing contemporary "greats", poor souls!
The other point is that the old great groups went through a form of 'apprentiship', travelling around in battered vans and going from one dodgy venue to another, with lots of sex, violence, drugs and rock 'n' roll. The Beatles, after going through various changes of identity and personnel mix from The Quarrymen in 1957, appeared near to their final line up in August 1960, and just kept going until 1970. Who of the current "pop stars" go through that artistic development?
When modern groups go, I agree that they are 'a product' that has reached it's shelf life and run out of ideas! ::) ::) ;)
Fixed that for you Lizzie ;)
-
they will get back together in a few years when the money runs out ;D ;D ;D
-
they will get back together in a few years when the money runs out ;D ;D ;D
Apparently they made £6 million each ........ ??? ??? ???
-
Spotted it on GMTV first thing and was dreading telling my 10 yr old JLS obsessed daughter when she got up,she was quite level headed about it but she really, really loves JB apparently :o
-
Won't be missed one iota by me. manufactured garbage. >:( >:(
-
come on now Lizzie, are you really comparing the likes of JLS (or Just a Load of S*** as some of us oldies may refer to them ;D) and No Direction to the Stones and the Beatles? As for the longevity bit, well the Beatles only ran for about 8yrs proper from 1962-69 and as for the Stones or Bowie, Im not sure that longevity is really such a good thing :-\ :y
No I am certainly not! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
But JLS and their like are the closest modern youngsters will ever get to seeing contemporary "greats", poor souls!
The other point is that the old great groups went through a form of 'apprentiship', travelling around in battered vans and going from one dodgy venue to another, with lots of sex, violence, drugs and rock 'n' roll. The Beatles, after going through various changes of identity and personnel mix from The Quarrymen in 1957, appeared near to their final line up in August 1960, and just kept going until 1970. Who of the current "pop stars" go through that artistic development?
When modern groups go, I agree that they are 'a product' that has reached it's shelf life and run out of ideas! ::) ::) ;)
Fixed that for you Lizzie ;)
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D :y :y
-
I think Lizzie's comparison of JLS to The Beatles is a good one, after all The Beatles were the original boy band, weren't they?? :-\ :)
-
I think Lizzie's comparison of JLS to The Beatles is a good one, after all The Beatles were the original boy band, weren't they?? :-\ :)
A few subtle differences though .... Beatles wrote their own music, played their own instruments, and started as a "local" band doing gigs in halls and pubs ... in other words they learned their craft ..
JLS a "made" band who relied on producers and technicians to tell them what to do and when.
IMHO no comparison as musicians, perhaps as entertainers, but that's a different matter .. :)
-
Who :-\
-
Who :-\
;D
-
I think Lizzie's comparison of JLS to The Beatles is a good one, after all The Beatles were the original boy band, weren't they?? :-\ :)
A few subtle differences though .... Beatles wrote their own music, played their own instruments, and started as a "local" band doing gigs in halls and pubs ... in other words they learned their craft ..
JLS a "made" band who relied on producers and technicians to tell them what to do and when.
IMHO no comparison as musicians, perhaps as entertainers, but that's a different matter .. :)
I agree Entwood. I would also add that The Monkeys, who were introduced to the music scene by the Americans as their answer to The Beatles, were very much a "made" band in the very same way as JLS , but at least The Monkeys (almost) played their own instruments! ::) ::) ;D ;D ;D ;D :y :y
-
I think Lizzie's comparison of JLS to The Beatles is a good one, after all The Beatles were the original boy band, weren't they?? :-\ :)
A few subtle differences though .... Beatles wrote their own music, played their own instruments, and started as a "local" band doing gigs in halls and pubs ... in other words they learned their craft ..
JLS a "made" band who relied on producers and technicians to tell them what to do and when.
IMHO no comparison as musicians, perhaps as entertainers, but that's a different matter .. :)
I agree Entwood. I would also add that The Monkeys, who were introduced to the music scene by the Americans as their answer to The Beatles, were very much a "made" band in the very same way as JLS , but at least The Monkeys (almost) played their own instruments! [/highlight] ::) ::) ;D ;D ;D ;D :y :y
The first man made boy band who didn't play any instruments on the recordings in fact the vocals were IMOH down in the main backing singers, bloody good writers though Boyce & Hart.
Pretty little boys made for pubescent little girls to waste their money >:( >:( >:( Absolute CRAP
-
I think Lizzie's comparison of JLS to The Beatles is a good one, after all The Beatles were the original boy band, weren't they?? :-\ :)
A few subtle differences though .... Beatles wrote their own music, played their own instruments, and started as a "local" band doing gigs in halls and pubs ... in other words they learned their craft ..
JLS a "made" band who relied on producers and technicians to tell them what to do and when.
IMHO no comparison as musicians, perhaps as entertainers, but that's a different matter .. :)
I agree Entwood. I would also add that The Monkeys, who were introduced to the music scene by the Americans as their answer to The Beatles, were very much a "made" band in the very same way as JLS , but at least The Monkeys (almost) played their own instruments! [/highlight] ::) ::) ;D ;D ;D ;D :y :y
The first man made boy band who didn't any instruments on the recordings in fact the vocals were IMOH down in the main backing singers.
Pretty little boys made for pubescent little girls to waste their money >:( >:( >:( Absolute CRAP
Ah, Cleggy, Davy Jones was cute (and British)! :( :( ;D ;D ;D ;)
I was a Beatles No.1 fan from 1963 so I know what you mean! :D :D :y :y
Paul and John were gorgeous :-* :-* :-* :-* 8) 8) 8) :y :y :D :D
-
I think Lizzie's comparison of JLS to The Beatles is a good one, after all The Beatles were the original boy band, weren't they?? :-\ :)
A few subtle differences though .... Beatles wrote their own music, played their own instruments, and started as a "local" band doing gigs in halls and pubs ... in other words they learned their craft ..
JLS a "made" band who relied on producers and technicians to tell them what to do and when.
IMHO no comparison as musicians, perhaps as entertainers, but that's a different matter .. :)
I agree Entwood. I would also add that The Monkeys, who were introduced to the music scene by the Americans as their answer to The Beatles, were very much a "made" band in the very same way as JLS , but at least The Monkeys (almost) played their own instruments! [/highlight] ::) ::) ;D ;D ;D ;D :y :y
The first man made boy band who didn't any instruments on the recordings in fact the vocals were IMOH down in the main backing singers.
Pretty little boys made for pubescent little girls to waste their money >:( >:( >:( Absolute CRAP
Ah, Cleggy, Davy Jones was cute (and British)! :( :( ;D ;D ;D ;)
I was a Beatles No.1 fan from 1963 so I know what you mean! :D :D :y :y
Paul and John were gorgeous :-* :-* :-* :-* 8) 8) 8) :y :y :D :D
Lizzie I saw them at Bradford Gaumont in 1964 where a brilliant Mary Wells was the second on the bill. :y :y :y :y
-
The Monkeys were originally never intended to be a "pop group" as we define one .. they were manufactured purely for the TV show they were part of ... a TV show about a fictitious pop group. It was only when the american public started demanding to buy the tracks played on the TV show that the group entered the "pop world" rather than the "acting world".
Yes - manufactured, Yes - rubbish, but for totally different reasons to the "modern" manufactured rubbish
As described on Wikipaedia ..
"Described by band member Micky Dolenz as initially being "a TV show about an imaginary band that wanted to be The Beatles, but that was never successful", the actor-musicians soon became a real band. As Dolenz would later describe it, "The Monkees really becoming a band was like the equivalent of Leonard Nimoy really becoming a Vulcan."
:) :) :)
-
The Monkeys were originally never intended to be a "pop group" as we define one .. they were manufactured purely for the TV show they were part of ... a TV show about a fictitious pop group. It was only when the american public started demanding to buy the tracks played on the TV show that the group entered the "pop world" rather than the "acting world".
Yes - manufactured, Yes - rubbish, but for totally different reasons to the "modern" manufactured rubbish
As described on Wikipaedia ..
"Described by band member Micky Dolenz as initially being "a TV show about an imaginary band that wanted to be The Beatles, but that was never successful", the actor-musicians soon became a real band. As Dolenz would later describe it, "The Monkees really becoming a band was like the equivalent of Leonard Nimoy really becoming a Vulcan."
:) :) :)
Ah the circus boy and Ena's grandson ;) I thought he was a Vulcan ::) ::) ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I think Lizzie's comparison of JLS to The Beatles is a good one, after all The Beatles were the original boy band, weren't they?? :-\ :)
A few subtle differences though .... Beatles wrote their own music, played their own instruments, and started as a "local" band doing gigs in halls and pubs ... in other words they learned their craft ..
JLS a "made" band who relied on producers and technicians to tell them what to do and when.
IMHO no comparison as musicians, perhaps as entertainers, but that's a different matter .. :)
I agree Entwood. I would also add that The Monkeys, who were introduced to the music scene by the Americans as their answer to The Beatles, were very much a "made" band in the very same way as JLS , but at least The Monkeys (almost) played their own instruments! [/highlight] ::) ::) ;D ;D ;D ;D :y :y
The first man made boy band who didn't any instruments on the recordings in fact the vocals were IMOH down in the main backing singers.
Pretty little boys made for pubescent little girls to waste their money >:( >:( >:( Absolute CRAP
Ah, Cleggy, Davy Jones was cute (and British)! :( :( ;D ;D ;D ;)
I was a Beatles No.1 fan from 1963 so I know what you mean! :D :D :y :y
Paul and John were gorgeous :-* :-* :-* :-* 8) 8) 8) :y :y :D :D
Lizzie I saw them at Bradford Gaumont in 1964 where a brilliant Mary Wells was the second on the bill. :y :y :y :y
I am jealous! I was in Malta then! :'( :'(
I once saw Paul and Linda in about 1972, but never, much to me shame, managed to get to a live Beatles performance :'( :'( :'( :'(
:y :y
-
The Monkeys were originally never intended to be a "pop group" as we define one .. they were manufactured purely for the TV show they were part of ... a TV show about a fictitious pop group. It was only when the american public started demanding to buy the tracks played on the TV show that the group entered the "pop world" rather than the "acting world".
Yes - manufactured, Yes - rubbish, but for totally different reasons to the "modern" manufactured rubbish
As described on Wikipaedia ..
"Described by band member Micky Dolenz as initially being "a TV show about an imaginary band that wanted to be The Beatles, but that was never successful", the actor-musicians soon became a real band. As Dolenz would later describe it, "The Monkees really becoming a band was like the equivalent of Leonard Nimoy really becoming a Vulcan."
:) :) :)
That is a very accurate description Nigel :y :y
-
This applies to all of todays manufactured groups:-
Pretty little boys made for pubescent little girls to waste their money Absolute CRAP >:( >:( >:( >:(
OR
Sexy little girls made for hormonal teenage boys to waste their money and energy on ::) Absolute CRAP >:( >:( >:( >:(
They are an insult to proper muscians learning their craft the hard way, who are so much better :y
-
The Beach Boys, and Brian Wilson in particular, were creating actual proper original music when the Quarrymen were still performing really poor covers of The Rock Island Line ::)
Never been much of a Beatles fan me ;D
-
Slightly biased view there, The Beach Boys fist single was released in October 1962 with the Beatles only a few months behind in March 1963.
So I would like to say that they were equal in terms on recording and pre recording days, with the Beatles being formed earlier in 1960 and the Beach Boys in 1961 ( although they were a family) greatly influenced by Jan & Dean
I like both, very talented unlike the dross produced today :y
-
JLS,the boy band, are breaking up! :'( :'( :'(
Why is it now that no group stays together like the old ones did, like the Beatles, Stones, The Who, Status Quo, etc, etc?
A case of too much money and fame too quickly? I wonder ;)
There are dozens more bands who do stay together and make incredible music for every JLS that splits up. There are certainly 'equivalents' to the stones or the who now...Pearl Jam, Metallica etc
The music industry has always had a mix of serious artists, one hit wonders and novelty acts... Nothing has changed.
Even in the 60s there were pop dross bands that cashed in then disapeared.
-
JLS,the boy band, are breaking up! :'( :'( :'(
Why is it now that no group stays together like the old ones did, like the Beatles, Stones, The Who, Status Quo, etc, etc?
A case of too much money and fame too quickly? I wonder ;)
There are dozens more bands who do stay together and make incredible music for every JLS that splits up. There are certainly 'equivalents' to the stones or the who now...Pearl Jam, Metallica etc
The music industry has always had a mix of serious artists, one hit wonders and novelty acts... Nothing has changed.
Even in the 60s there were pop dross bands that cashed in then disapeared.
You're certainly not wrong there ;D ;D ;D I'm just oo old to remember ;);D ;D
'Later With Jools Holland' throws up some amazing talent :y :y who don't get money thrown at them for promotion them by the industry. Then again do they or we want them to ???
-
Slightly biased view there, The Beach Boys fist single was released in October 1962 with the Beatles only a few months behind in March 1963.
So I would like to say that they were equal in terms on recording and pre recording days, with the Beatles being formed earlier in 1960 and the Beach Boys in 1961 ( although they were a family) greatly influenced by Jan & Dean
I like both, very talented unlike the dross produced today :y
Yes, and I would emphasis that The Quarry Men were formed in March 1957, and by the next year comprised of six members who included John, Paul and George. So you can say The Beatles actually started then, albeit as a skiffle group that then, under Paul influence, turned more and more to rock 'n' roll numbers. They then progressed through a series of band name changes (From Jan 1960 to August 1960), including The Beatals, Silver Beats, The Silver Beetles , then from August 1960 finally becoming The Beatles.
Therefore The Beatles evolved with three key members in place from 1958, then with Ringo Starr joining in August 1962, with the sacking of Pete Best, via a lot of gigs, including those famously in Hamburg. Like so many groups from those early years it took time to make it, with so many never doing so. With The Beatles history awaited!
With The Beach Boys not forming until 1962 as a completely new outfit as I understand it, The Beatles had the edge. Also remember The Beatles had their first Top 40 hit in October 1962, the same month as The Beach Boys had their first hit! :D :D :D ;)
-
Two words...
Pet Sounds :y
-
Two words...
Pet Sounds :y
Sgt Pepper :y
-
Two words...
Pet Sounds :y
Sgt Pepper :y
Nope still not convinced ::) but I do like Meat Loaf, so not really in a position to criticise ;D
-
I love meat loaf......peas and gravey yum yum :y :y i can dream back to the chicken and salad diet :'( :'(
-
Could be worse.......... RAPPERS complete and utter shite, where as Boy Bands are only shite ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Could be worse.......... RAPPERS complete and utter shite, where as Boy Bands are only shite ;D ;D ;D ;D
Ain't that the truth ;D
-
good! :D