Supremes or Beatles: Who was better?

**smark21** · 10-19-2011, 07:46 AM

I know some Supremes fans like to say The Supremes were the female Beatles and cite they were the most popular American act of the 60's. So while there is a bit of apples and oranges going on with my question, I'm curious to know: Who do SDF members consider the better act--The Supremes or The Beatles? And why?

**skooldem1** · 10-19-2011, 08:59 AM

Why are the Supremes called "puppets" in some circles? If they are, then so are Martha, the Temptations, and 99.98% of the 60's Motown acts, but you never see those acts referred to in that way. Wonder why???

You can't compare a singing group with a band that writes and plays instruments.

**RossHolloway** · 10-19-2011, 09:32 AM

The Supreme's hands down. I have never ever bought anything by the Beatles. In my honest opinion I think they are the most overrated musical artist in the history of mankind. A glorified boy band in the same vein of New Kids on the Block and The Backstreet Boys. Three guitars and a drummer? Really? Yawn-boring. I understand the appeal they may have for some people, but millions of people also find Millie Vanillie and Mylie Cyrus appealing. There's something for everyone out there. I also think you're trying to compare apples to oranges between the two groups.

**skooldem1** · 10-19-2011, 09:42 AM

I have NEVER seen any other Motown act referred to as puppets. But if you say so......

**motony** · 10-19-2011, 10:25 AM

copley, thats not true at all. Motown artists(and they are artists in the truest since of the word) could & did reject material all the time(The Marvelettes passed on WDOLG).They also chose their own stage clothes & before the fall of 1964 did their own stage routines.As far as standing on stage & putting on a real show, the Supremes beat the Beatles 100%. The Beatles LIVE shows were a joke & to them also as the shreiking screaming girls drowned out their music, thats why they quit performing LIVE.

**motony** · 10-19-2011, 10:31 AM

They were not puppets!

**jobeterob** · 10-19-2011, 11:18 AM

The two biggest groups of the 60's...........incomparable.

**TMSG** · 10-19-2011, 12:02 PM

I live about 10 miles from Liverpool and never rated the 'Merseybeat', always thought it was over-rated and much prefer the Detroit sound, and therefore the Supremes. The Beatles started out covering many Motown hits so I always thought they were inferior to any of the Motown acts, so was very disappointed when Motown (Supremes) covered the Merseysound.

**carlo** · 10-19-2011, 12:13 PM

I say The Supremes hands-down. Most people on this forum will probably say Supremes. lol

**soulster** · 10-19-2011, 12:26 PM

This is a bad matchup. The Beatles were entirely different than the Supremes in almost every way.

**ejluther** · 10-19-2011, 02:44 PM

A glorified boy band in the same vein of New Kids on the Block and The Backstreet Boys

Well, The Beatles are certainly distinguished from groups like that by the fact that they wrote their own songs and were terrific musicians but to each his own.

The Beatles and The Supremes are probably my favorite two recording groups of all time but I can't really compare them in a match-up like this; they simply come from different worlds. In terms of pure pop enjoyment and appeal, I'd give the prize to The Supremes but in terms of musicianship and an amazing overall catalog it's The Beatles for me. Thankfully we can love them both!

**randy_russi** · 10-19-2011, 02:50 PM

It's not really who was better, but which music did you like better, right?

**ejluther** · 10-19-2011, 03:48 PM

Originally Posted by randy_russi

It's not really who was better, but which music did you like better, right?

Of course - and stuff like this is by its very nature subjective. Like I said, they're my two favorites so I find ways to like them both the best for different reasons but the truth is I can't choose, especially if the only question is whose music do you like better - that would be a dead heat in my book...

**Jimi LaLumia** · 10-19-2011, 04:22 PM

I was a member of The Beatles Fan Club in the 60's, followed their every move in the pages of 16 Magazine, but I always resented how The Supremes were treated as lesser thans , and not because they didn't write their own music, but because they were females(in the 60's!- a whole different world than the decades that followed) and because they were black, plain and simple. ..In actual facts and figures, The Supremes WIN hands down!!

**ajk93** · 10-19-2011, 05:21 PM

Well, I agree that they are two different types of bands (instruments vs vocals).
I don't like the iconic or godly status given to The Beatles. The Supremes had
accomplished much more by the end of their career, I feel.
1) Crossover success to black and white audiences
2) Headliners at major events (Copacabana, Astrodome Opening etc.)
3) TV appearances that could not be duplicated by other acts
4) Advertisments (Bread, Coke, Deoderant, Wigs)
5) 2 Television specials with HUGE ratings
6) Continued success AFTER the star left
7) Launch pad for a MAJORLY successful solo career for Diana
8) Brought the Motown sound to kids, parents, the elderly etc.
through rock, jazz, standards, pop, R&B, disco, ballads and more.
9) First Girl Group to have more than one Number 1 Single (During a time
when the "girl group sound" was dying out)
10) First Girl Group to hit the top of the album charts (3 Times)

Thats an awful lot to compete with. The Beatles are very talented. But they had
their work more cut out for them. You can tell The Supremes definately had more
drive to reach success (something Gordy mentions alot). The Supremes had to
reach out to every audience while with The Beatles, their success was implied
with the young crowd. I don't know why The Supremes often go unmentioned in
lists of greatest artists or most influential music acts. To me, they define the American Dream.

So, who's better. It depends specifically in what aspect. But it's neck and neck, and
The Supremes have much more on The Beatles than often cited.

**ejluther** · 10-19-2011, 05:47 PM

I don't know why The Supremes often go unmentioned in lists of greatest artists or most influential music acts. To me, they define the American Dream.

I totally agree. I think that, as others have mentioned, the fact that they didn't play instruments/write music themselves seem to automatically disqualify them for a lot of music "snobs" and, therefore, they get forgotten/left off "Greatest Artists" list - that they're "just" singers. And while I can appreciate the obvious differences between a "songwriter/musician" and "just a singer", that doesn't mean The Supremes deserve any less credit or appreciation or kudos for all the reasons you so nicely stated above. After all, it seems to me that it takes a great deal of artistry to wring emotion and depth out of words and music you didn't even write. And, as a non-singer/non-musician myself (just a music fan), I think that it might often be more challenging to be the song interpreter rather than the song writer. Regardless, I'm not saying one is better than the other, I'm just saying that "just" singers deserve some love, too...

**Jimi LaLumia** · 10-19-2011, 07:13 PM

as mentioned above, The Supremes brand lasted well into the 70s, after The Beatles broke up(1969), with continued chart success and tv appearances, and the girls topped charts for both the white and black audiences (what Gordy called 'double #1's"),definately more of a total conquest of USA's pop scene than the Beatles, who only happened on white charts..

**ajk93** · 10-19-2011, 07:21 PM

Originally Posted by ejluther

I totally agree. I think that, as others have mentioned, the fact that they didn't play instruments/write music themselves seem to automatically disqualify them for a lot of music "snobs" and, therefore, they get forgotten/left off "Greatest Artists" list - that they're "just" singers. And while I can appreciate the obvious differences between a "songwriter/musician" and "just a singer", that doesn't mean The Supremes deserve any less credit or appreciation or kudos for all the reasons you so nicely stated above. After all, it seems to me that it takes a great deal of artistry to wring emotion and depth out of words and music you didn't even write. And, as a non-singer/non-musician myself (just a music fan), I think that it might often be more challenging to be the song interpreter rather than the song writer. Regardless, I'm not saying one is better than the other, I'm just saying that "just" singers deserve some love, too...

ejluther - Right On!!!!!!!! It's nice to have someone agree with me on those points!!!

Jimmi - I very much agree. I just feel that their success matters more because of how, where, and
who got them there. Racial crossover in the 60's is HUGE.

That doesn't make either group better singers or preformers, but it does make them stand out from the rest.

**Jimi LaLumia** · 10-19-2011, 07:36 PM

well, on the performers, none of The Beatles as a front person had the electricity of ***DIANA ROSS**..not even my fave John Lennon at his best...just the way it is

**ajk93** · 10-19-2011, 07:43 PM

Originally Posted by Jimi LaLumia

well, on the performers, none of The Beatles as a front person had the electricity of ***DIANA ROSS**..not even my fave John Lennon at his best...just the way it is

True. The Beatles sometimes seem like they were distant, above their fans and other artists, or maybe
overconfident. The Supremes (whether they were in person or not) were given more of the appearance
of being more wholesome, reachable, and "American".

I think it's a very interesting story when The Beatles and The Supremes met in a hotel room.
Either '65 or '66 (someone correct me!) because Florence was with them. One of The Beatles
(George?) couldn't understand how "3 black girls from Detroit could be so square". The groups
were polar opposites. Anyone got more info on the 2 meeting???

As I recall, it was very awkward for The Supremes, and no one seemed that interested in one another.

Someone step in and correct me.

**bradsupremes** · 10-19-2011, 11:35 PM

According to Mary, when they first met the Beatles, the guys were acting childish and silly (something about playing with toy cars on the floor). Eventually the groups became good friends, but it shows you how the Supremes had to behave and act in order to succeed.

I find it rather sad that the Supremes are always ignored when it comes to getting acknowledged for their success while every time I turn around there is another Beatles tribute, another Beatles related project, another silly and pointless story related to the Beatles making the evening news. Really? I understand their success and why they are regarded as one of the greatest artists of all-time, but do we need to constantly make a huge deal out of everything Beatles. Hell, if Ringo Starr died, I am sure the evening news would dedicate half of the time just to him....I hate thinking this, but I've wondered how the evening news would handle the death of a Supreme.

**stephanie** · 10-19-2011, 11:41 PM

Weird question. Over time in sales alone the Beatles beat the Supremes hands down. However I think the Supremes for reasons mentioned above are groundbreakers and I like them better. I hate to say this but its much easier for me to listen to a Beatles album over and over because of the musicianship but I dont know all of the words like I do to my Supremes albums. I find myself liking Beatles 65 more than any of their other albums that is my version of More Hits by the Supremes and then Rubber Soul a close second. I love LOOKING at the Supremes sing over and over. Performancewise (except for early clips) the Beatles are downright boring to watch I would rather see Gerry and the Pacemakers or the Animals perform when it came to the Brits and the Merseybeat sound. I couldnt stand watching them on the so called acid trip and I lost interest in them after the Magical Mystery Tour and Yellow Submarine ..Peter Max shtick! At least when the Supremes got more glamorous and the name changed to Diana Ross and the Supremes they were still fun to listen to and watch on television. I dont even care for the Swinging Blue Jeans but at least they could move and had a little notice when Hippy Hippy Shake was in the movie Cocktail with Tom Cruise. The Supremes are not musicians so its hard to compare the two but do I think the Beatles are overrated not really they were great songwriters and could do much with a lyric and all four of them had successful solo careers which is saying something. I cant think of a group where ALL of the members had lengthy successful solo careers like the Beatles. When it comes to their greatness though I think George Martin is more responsible that what he is given credit for. Our girls had a lot of obstacles to overcome and for that reason I would have to give the Supremes the one up.

**soulster** · 10-20-2011, 12:16 AM

Originally Posted by randy_russi

It's not really who was better, but which music did you like better, right?

Bingo!

That's what it's really all about, who's music you enjoy more. Well, for me, it's equal! Sometimes i'm in the mood for Supremes. Sometimes i'm in the mood for Beatles. And, most of the time, I like a bit of both among the other artists and music that was popular in the 60s and early 70s. And, they both admired each other. Blacks liked Beatles, Whites liked Supremes. Why does it have to be a contest?

Like I said, it's a silly matchup.

**smark21** · 10-20-2011, 07:42 PM

Since I started this thread, I guess I better weigh in. Ultimately it comes down to who you enjoy more. For years, I far preferred The Supremes, in part for the underdog factor as The Beatles are so massively hyped. Of course The Supremes music is very polished and entertaining and mostly fun. Then two years ago, I decided to give The Beatles a chance and bought the reissued and remastered albums. Before then I knew the big hits, but that's about it. I was blown away by their musical variety (especially from Rubber Soul onwards) and the quality of the songwriting. Also their lyrics cover a broader range than The Supremes. So for me, it depends on my musical mood and appetite at the moment. I prefer The Supremes for fun, froth and escapist entertainment, but The Beatles are better when I want to combine pop with substance and some musical ambition. Both acts catered to the pop marketplace. But ultimately The Beatles caused the pop marketplace to come to them on their terms, while too often The supremes were marketed to pander to the pop marketplace of the time with their nightclub material, something that gives their career an intriguing quality, but of which I have very mixed and complex opinions about.

**smark21** · 10-20-2011, 07:44 PM

Originally Posted by ajk93

True. The Beatles sometimes seem like they were distant, above their fans and other artists, or maybe
overconfident. The Supremes (whether they were in person or not) were given more of the appearance
of being more wholesome, reachable, and "American".

I think it's a very interesting story when The Beatles and The Supremes met in a hotel room.
Either '65 or '66 (someone correct me!) because Florence was with them. One of The Beatles
(George?) couldn't understand how "3 black girls from Detroit could be so square". The groups
were polar opposites. Anyone got more info on the 2 meeting???

As I recall, it was very awkward for The Supremes, and no one seemed that interested in one another.

Someone step in and correct me.

AT that meeting, one of the Beatles asked The Supremes some technical questions about how the Motown sound was produced and the girls couldn't come up with any sort of informed answer. Things like that may be reason why The Supremes have a reputation as puppets, beyond the silly viewpoint that one has to write and play instruments to be a credible musical act.

**ralpht** · 10-20-2011, 08:11 PM

Smark, At that time the, young Supremes, wouldn't have a clue how things worked in the studio from a technical viewpoint. Most artists at that time were somewhat in the same boat when it came to the technicalities of producing and recording music. This is by no means a criticism of these artists, it is just the way it was.

**Laurel** · 10-20-2011, 09:52 PM

I liked them both. Their music brings back lots of good memories. I see a lot more Beatles albums for sale when I go to Garage Sales or Flea Markets. Maybe they sold more or maybe people prefer to hold on to their Supremes albums than their Beatles albums?

**arrr&bee** · 10-26-2011, 03:33 PM

Haaaaaaaaaaa,if you go on vocals alone it's no contest,the beatles???are you kidding me they were terrible but they wrote some cool tunes of course and til i die i will never understand their popularity but i do have some of thier work in my collection it's like everything else in life,we like who we like and i don't dislike the beatles i just don't think they could sing.

**juicefree20** · 10-26-2011, 04:22 PM

Better in what respect? Interpreting songs or crafting them? Stage banter, glamour & appeal or musicality? Are we speaking about The Supremes as an entire entity, or during their ground-breaking glory days with Diana, Mary & Flo & Cindy?

Either way you look at it, both groups changed the landscape of popular music. I believe that in 1964 America, The Supremes had bigger hurdles to jump over, but in terms of overall influence & impact, you have to go with The Beatles. There were weeks where they had the equivalent of damn near entire albums in the Top 40 simultaneously.

In 1964, they had 30 songs that charted on the Pop Hot 100...THIRTY! Of that, 11 went Top 10, 17 hit the Top 40, 6 were #1 & received 4 Gold records. That's more charters than the majority of groups achieve in a lifetime. Or you could look at it as though in one year, they had an entire career worth of hits! In 1965, they had 10, for a two-year total of 40 charters, 6 more Top 10s, 5 more #1s & 4 more Gold records.

This does not take into consideration their LPs, which we already know were also wildly successful.

Indeed, The Supremes gave them one hell of a run for their money, but the impact was different. And for reasons which should be obvious, read a R&B/Pop/Soul act as opposed to a Pop/Rock act, The Beatles impact & influence would be more wide-spread, as The Beatles had appeal not only amongst young girls whom adored them as Pop idols, but also to just about any young guy during those days who fancied becoming a huge Rock star who'd get a lot of fame, money, chicks & sex. And not just in Liverpool, but the U.S., Japan & anywhere else where youthful hormones rage.

I guess that what I'm saying is that The Beatles had a broader spectrum of fans to pull from & for various reasons would have a greater appeal to more people than The Supremes would've been able to reach & influence in similar numbers. Does that make one or the other better, I can't say.

The Beatles were a self-contained band who wrote, produced, played & sang their own creations. The Supremes could be viewed more as interpreters of songs & damned great ones at that. For those reasons, I don't believe that this could be a fair comparison, nor do I believe that the two can be compared.

**juicefree20** · 10-26-2011, 04:46 PM

I neglected to say that I liked the music of both. Actually, I loved the music of both. HOWEVER, I was 4 when both broke through & being a little kid, I thought that The Supremes were great (ESPECIALLY Mary!), to be honest, I can't say that I've ever been able to sit & listen to all of their albums. For me, there was just too much Pop in many of their songs, some of the songs were just TOO crossover for me.

It's like trying to listen to Jackie Wilson or Sam Cooke Live At The Copa during the days when R&B acts had to water down their sound & try to be a bit too for lack of a better phrase, Sinatraesque..."too cool baby, are you hep?" & that kind of thing. Sorry but I wasn't into Bill Bailey & gave less than a damn if he never came home & I wasn't doing nobody's damn Tennessee Waltz. And for me, during that time, at that age, some of their music was just a little too "cutesy" for my taste & making it worse for me, is that although I now understand WHY they had to do it, it was obvious that they WERE doing it. Some of those attempts simply fell flat to me & frankly, I wished that some of those recordings had never been made.

Same thing with The Beatles, whom made songs that I absolutely loved, as well more than a few that I wished that they had fed to that damn walrus, or let Mawell's Silver Hammer go a few rounds with them.

I guess that the difference for me is that where The Beatles seemed to be able to do whatever they wanted to do & could do it on their own terms & in all sincerity, I felt that some of The Supremes songs were a little less honest, that some of their songs were crafted with the idea of moving into the supper club environment, an environment & musical style that simply doesn't appeal to me. Which is why Sam Cooke flopped during his first foray there because it didn't feel natural, it simply felt contrived & obviously so.

Unless it's a "Greatest hits" package, I can think of precious few COMPLETE Supremes LPs that I can simply drop the needle on & let play through. For as much as I love the majority of their music, I can be truthful enough to say that I don't believe that every song they've recorded is a gem, nor a hit. Nor can I say the same about any of my favorite artists, nor do I feel the need to. I guess that I'm saying that the music of The Beatles felt less affected to me & that I had a disconnect with some of the music of The Supremes because I definitely felt that it suffered from that affectation of which I speak.

I'm sure that I'm not the only one whom felt this way.

Regardless, they're two great groups whom appeal to me for one reason which unifies them...

They made GREAT music which has stood the test of time & missteps aside, that's more than good enough for me.

**RossHolloway** · 10-27-2011, 09:30 AM

Originally Posted by juicefree20

I neglected to say that I liked the music of both. Actually, I loved the music of both. HOWEVER, I was 4 when both broke through & being a little kid, I thought that The Supremes were great (ESPECIALLY Mary!), to be honest, I can't say that I've ever been able to sit & listen to all of their albums. For me, there was just too much Pop in many of their songs, some of the songs were just TOO crossover for me.

It's like trying to listen to Jackie Wilson or Sam Cooke Live At The Copa during the days when R&B acts had to water down their sound & try to be a bit too for lack of a better phrase, Sinatraesque..."too cool baby, are you hep?" & that kind of thing. Sorry but I wasn't into Bill Bailey & gave less than a damn if he never came home & I wasn't doing nobody's damn Tennessee Waltz. And for me, during that time, at that age, some of their music was just a little too "cutesy" for my taste & making it worse for me, is that although I now understand WHY they had to do it, it was obvious that they WERE doing it. Some of those attempts simply fell flat to me & frankly, I wished that some of those recordings had never been made.

Same thing with The Beatles, whom made songs that I absolutely loved, as well more than a few that I wished that they had fed to that damn walrus, or let Mawell's Silver Hammer go a few rounds with them.

I guess that the difference for me is that where The Beatles seemed to be able to do whatever they wanted to do & could do it on their own terms & in all sincerity, I felt that some of The Supremes songs were a little less honest, that some of their songs were crafted with the idea of moving into the supper club environment, an environment & musical style that simply doesn't appeal to me. Which is why Sam Cooke flopped during his first foray there because it didn't feel natural, it simply felt contrived & obviously so.

Unless it's a "Greatest hits" package, I can think of precious few COMPLETE Supremes LPs that I can simply drop the needle on & let play through. For as much as I love the majority of their music, I can be truthful enough to say that I don't believe that every song they've recorded is a gem, nor a hit. Nor can I say the same about any of my favorite artists, nor do I feel the need to. I guess that I'm saying that the music of The Beatles felt less affected to me & that I had a disconnect with some of the music of The Supremes because I definitely felt that it suffered from that affectation of which I speak.

I'm sure that I'm not the only one whom felt this way.

Regardless, they're two great groups whom appeal to me for one reason which unifies them...

They made GREAT music which has stood the test of time & missteps aside, that's more than good enough for me.

I understanding what you're saying about the two groups. It's kinda hard to compare the two. Plus there were factors that were beyond their control and I think most people don't take into consideration the time frame of there success. How popular do you think the Beatle's would have been if American radio stations had the same type of restrictions as say the BBC? Or how much did race hurt or hold back the Supremes? As popular and successful as the Supremes were, I don't think they played/sang on the same equal playing field as the Beatles or other non-black musical acts. The Supreme's may have opened a lot of musical doors, but how many were still shut because of the color of their skin?

**kenneth** · 10-27-2011, 10:59 AM

Well, in terms of overall impact, the Beatles changed the world, not just music but way beyond it. They were either poised at the right time at the right moment or largely responsible for much of the counterculture movement of the 1960s.

The Supremes, great as they were, had some impact on civil rights and what was at the time considered "crossover" performers, but outside music I don't think their impact was anything close to what the Beatles effected.

**marv2** · 10-27-2011, 11:16 AM

I liked them both and never thought to compare the two. I generally use to compare the Beatles with the Stones. Being a young guy back then, I liked the Supremes as they were hot looking chicks in my opinion! LOL!!! It didn't go much deeper than that. Both groups put out some really good music that has become timeless. I remember the mass hysteria surrounding the Beatles everytime they appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show with all the girls screaming where you could barely hear the music. The Supremes gave the guys something to look at and as Cholly Atkins has said, Mary was the one that made us notice what they were putting down! LOL!!!

**robbert** · 10-27-2011, 11:18 AM

This is a non-topic for me.
I never heard anyone say, that The Beatles were the male Supremes.

**skooldem1** · 10-27-2011, 11:27 AM

Originally Posted by kenneth

Well, in terms of overall impact, the Beatles changed the world, not just music but way beyond it. They were either poised at the right time at the right moment or largely responsible for much of the counterculture movement of the 1960s.

The Supremes, great as they were, had some impact on civil rights and what was at the time considered "crossover" performers, but outside music I don't think their impact was anything close to what the Beatles effected.

Interesting. I'd take the Supremes impact on the civil rights movement (however small it may have been) over the impact the Beatles had. BTW outside of their impact in the music industry, what meaningful impact did the Beatles have on society at large?

**Jimi LaLumia** · 10-27-2011, 11:39 AM

The Supremes success was natural;
The Beatles success was induced by a country looking to escape the gloom of the JFK asassination, as well as the hype machine of staged hysteria at airports, an Ed Sullivan appearance full of hyped up girls to drown out the band,and a merchandising campaign built around wigs and teen magazines;
it was as much about merchandise as it was about music, heavy on the HYPE, before most of us had learned that word;
as I said, The Supremes success was more natural, minus the hype,and they rose above despite the anchors(at that time) of being female and being black: I was around, it was a VERY big deal..

**marybrewster** · 10-27-2011, 12:17 PM

Originally Posted by ajk93

9) First Girl Group to have more than one Number 1 Single (During a time
when the "girl group sound" was dying out)

Don't forget The Shirelles, who hit #1 in 1960 with "Will You Love Me Tomorrow" and in 1961 with "Soldier Boy".

**Jimi LaLumia** · 10-27-2011, 12:25 PM

Girls group were at their height in 60-61;
1964-65 was a whole different, Beatles kind of world

**roger** · 10-27-2011, 01:27 PM

Originally Posted by Jimi LaLumia

The Supremes success was natural;
The Beatles success was induced by a country looking to escape the gloom of the JFK asassination, as well as the hype machine of staged hysteria at airports, an Ed Sullivan appearance full of hyped up girls to drown out the band,and a merchandising campaign built around wigs and teen magazines;
it was as much about merchandise as it was about music, heavy on the HYPE, before most of us had learned that word;
as I said, The Supremes success was more natural, minus the hype,and they rose above despite the anchors(at that time) of being female and being black: I was around, it was a VERY big deal..

Jimi .. In Britain the growth of popularity of THE BEATLES was a lot more organic, with a period of almost a year between them first appearing on the "Pop" charts (October 1962) and the time when the country was being swamped with Beatles merchandise and their concert performances were being drowned out by screaming girls. It seemed that whereas in Britain it took Beatlemania 12 months to incubate in America it took 12 hours!!

Roger

**kenneth** · 10-27-2011, 01:51 PM

Originally Posted by skooldem1

Interesting. I'd take the Supremes impact on the civil rights movement (however small it may have been) over the impact the Beatles had. BTW outside of their impact in the music industry, what meaningful impact did the Beatles have on society at large?

Are you serious?

**skooldem1** · 10-27-2011, 01:56 PM

Yes, very serious.

**kenneth** · 10-27-2011, 02:00 PM

Originally Posted by skooldem1

Yes, very serious.

I think I'll pass, thanks. Here's one publication's thoughts on the subject, however.

http://www.cambridge.org/aus/catalog...=9780521689762

**skooldem1** · 10-27-2011, 02:07 PM

I'm not looking to read an essay on the topic. Surely you can list one or two things that the Beatles did. In my world, I'm not aware of any signifigant impact the Beatles had, that's why I am asking.

**kenneth** · 10-27-2011, 02:10 PM

I should have known better than to open myself up to this by expressing surprise at your earlier response, but I'm not going to debate this with you and won't respond again. If you're truly interested, I'm sure you can find much about it through a simple search. Thank you.

**skooldem1** · 10-27-2011, 02:13 PM

Ok. Cool. What I don't understand is your attitude. I asked a serious question and you act almost offended that I can't think of any positive influence, outside fo the music world, that the Beatles had. What's up with that?

**motony** · 10-27-2011, 02:44 PM

skooldem 1, I think he means that the Beatles were at the forefront of the "youth culture" movement as far as fashion(or lack there of, LOL) hair, attitude ect. This was not something they did conciously.

**Jimi LaLumia** · 10-27-2011, 02:49 PM

The Beatles were more of a reflector of the world changing, they were like a Top 40 radio station unto themselves;
they looked at folk music, country/western, MOTOWN, Bob Dylan, Allen Ginbergh, The Fugs and the Greenwhich Village freaks,Timothy Leary, hippies etc. and made commercial versions of everything that influenced the world at large;'
they didn't create any of these things on their own; they were the messengers /reflectors of the world changing;
I got my hipness from following The Beatles, who were busy following and regurgitating their own version of what was the 1960's, all that I mentioned above and more..(my friend, the late Gloria Stavers of 16 Magazine, turned them onto quite a few things between 1964-1966 herself)!...groovy//

**marv2** · 10-27-2011, 02:52 PM

Originally Posted by robbert

This is a non-topic for me.
I never heard anyone say, that The Beatles were the male Supremes.

That's true. I do recall folks saying the Four Tops were the male Supremes but that stemmed from them sharing the same writers and producers in Holland-Dozier-Holland.

**marv2** · 10-27-2011, 02:58 PM

Originally Posted by skooldem1

Interesting. I'd take the Supremes impact on the civil rights movement (however small it may have been) over the impact the Beatles had. BTW outside of their impact in the music industry, what meaningful impact did the Beatles have on society at large?

Skool Dem, the Beatles really did have a far reaching impact not only on music (some of McCartney & Lennon's songs are among some of the most recorded in history), but on pop culture in general. Guys started wearing their hair longer once the Beatles became popular. Clothing styles changed as well along the lines of what the Beatles were sporting. The opened the door for many other British artists that eventually achieved success around the World. There were Beatles toys, cartoons, board games, lunch boxes etc,etc,etc. The music was even used as a backdrop to many Vietnam War protests as I recall.

**marv2** · 10-27-2011, 03:00 PM

Originally Posted by motony

skooldem 1, I think he means that the Beatles were at the forefront of the "youth culture" movement as far as fashion(or lack there of, LOL) hair, attitude ect. This was not something they did conciously.

Motony, exactly!