Who was the Justin bieber of the 70's?

Who was the Justin bieber of the 70's?
Why am i unaware of any kind of such phenomenon back when the classics were released, wasn't it until the 90's that teenage girls started to form a hierarchy and position mundane popartists at the top of charts?

Other urls found in this thread:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=51cexQtVKks&itct=CBMQpDAYASITCIOu-cSBh9cCFcTQVQodP_YLOjIHcmVsYXRlZEjml6KEw7bd0cAB
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Elvis

What the fuck do you think The Beatles were?
The economy moves if girls like it.

From about 1973 or so on David and/or Shaun Cassidy, in the UK Marc Bolan, David Essex or Leo Sayer; Leif Garrett to start you off with.

/thread

Donny Osmond.

This

You can't argue the beatles made relatively bad or formulaic? music, besides, they had a plethora of fans in all fucking age groups, which was super remarkable

>why wasn't it until the 90's that teenage girls started to form a hierarchy and position mundane popartists at the top of charts?
Did you forget the entirety of the 1980s?

he kinda looks like young justin too

The beatles broke up in the 70's.
Thats when they all went solo. I dont know who was the bieber, but that decade was filled with a shitload of musical genres when you think about it.
Disco, funk, soul, r&b, punk, prog rock, glam rock, even near the end of the decade metal and rap were born

the 70's were sort of grimey, feel fuzzy, dirty. People with chest hair and leisure suits. But also like sparkly and glam and at studio 54 doing coke

Music doesn't matter in this case; the only important things are the themes sung about (love, normal/great life) and the aspect of who sings.
The Beatles were one of the few groups who did, indeed, appealed to a lot of young girls AND the critics. Every decade has their pretty boys for the teen girls, and most of them are forgotten in due time (when they age). It's a natural process at this time.

Barry Manilow

I would say the Beatles and their legacy have lasted longer than any other boy band. Plus the legend of saint lennon.

... what did I say? The Beatles are an exception.

Early Beatles was very much the 1D of the 60s

That's such a shitty comparison and it's used so fucking often. The Beatles all played their own instruments, and wrote the vast majority of the music they played and released.

One Direction is just a shitty boy band focused entirely on their vocals. Notice how they take turns singing in songs and switch up who is singing, so all the girls get to hear their favorite boy sing a solo.

It's a shit comparison. They're comparable to ACTUAL boy bands from the 90s like Backstreet Boys and Nsync.

So only in the 60's were the biebers actually relevant..

The songs they played at the beginning of their career were mostly really simple and cheesy. They stepped up their game later big time, but most of their early work is laughably outdated

actually Fabian/ Frankie Avalon would be closer to 1D, but you have to take a two year jump back from the UK Invasion Bands to do so

The Osmonds [MGM, 1971]

The most heart-warming thing to happen to the wonderful world of pop music since Georgia Gibbs recorded "Dance with Me, Henry." Mike Curb strikes again. D

Phase III [MGM, 1972]

No, I'm not being perverse. In fact, the first side to this lp--which includes two great singles ("Yo-Yo" and "Down by the Lazy River") and two good white soul-rockers and an acceptable-plus ballad--is such great AM music that I'm tempted to go higher. Unfortunately, the other side is a stinker, from Jesus-rock to studio jollity. One album a year and they might be very good indeed. B

Greatest Hits [Polydor, 1977]

Come on, they weren't so terrible. In a time when AM music was really beginning to deteriorate "Yo-Yo" and "Down by the Lazy River" and even the scandalous "One Bad Apple" rated in the upper third of the radio pleasure zone, and their "young" songs were not devoid of cuteness. But even at their best they did sound forced. And their own contribution to the deterioration of AM radio was considerable. C

That's The Monkees. Beatles are an anomaly, plain and simple. I've dobe some work in a retirement home and much like there were old ladies which definitely had something of a 1D thing going for them, there was this old guy who was a big fan of theirs just off the music at the time, especially their earlier rock 'n' roll songs at the beginning and later went on to like their more psychedelic stuff and later their plain mixture of everything at once.

It's really not, musically it's surprisingly refined. That said the aesthetic of it has gotten outdated but a surprising amount of their songs still holds up.

No less than Bob Dylan himself talked of how revolutionary those early Beatles songs were at the time.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=51cexQtVKks&itct=CBMQpDAYASITCIOu-cSBh9cCFcTQVQodP_YLOjIHcmVsYXRlZEjml6KEw7bd0cAB

Godfucking damnit fucking girls and their fucking hormones, hear them scream for this pos duo, how embarrassing plus it just diminishes all the cheering from any beatlemania

Their early music is mainly beat music. It's not cheesy at all you fucking pleb. Most of their early stuff is still incredibly catchy and fun to listen to. While the lyrics might not always be highly regarded, the music is still great.

You probably one of those fags who think their psych period is MINDBLOWING BROOO. Pro tip: Their psych shit is the least interesting of their catalog.

the 70s were too cool for the likes of a justin bieber type. Everybody was taking psyches and and there was timeless music being released nonstop from all over

Perhaps you heard the stories of how girls would literally pee themselves at concerts back then.

I think The Who referenced it on 5:15.

beatles fans are fucking insufferable

Women were very very sexually repressed by the standards of today so when they got the chance, they went insane.