Did The Beatles originate the "Hey, it's four outsized personalities!" style of band? What bands can we think of that follow this model?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Cause it occurred to me that Poison and Motley Crue kind of follow this model and that gives them an odd, unlikely link to The Beatles.

― Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Sunday, 26 February 2006 17:21 (twenty years ago)

It isn't unlikely at all! (But you're missing the connection via KISS there.)

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 26 February 2006 17:32 (twenty years ago)

True dat.

― Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Sunday, 26 February 2006 17:34 (twenty years ago)

It also just struck me that this is often a model for boy or girl bands, but then I started to wonder if there wasn't some earlier example than the beatles of a vocal group with three or four big personalities instead of a star and three backups or a faceless collective.

― Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Sunday, 26 February 2006 17:35 (twenty years ago)

The Spice Girls were five, right?

ah xpost

― Sundar (sundar), Sunday, 26 February 2006 17:36 (twenty years ago)

the appetite lineup of g'n'r!

― Autonomous University of Zacatecas (Jody Beth Rosen), Sunday, 26 February 2006 17:36 (twenty years ago)

But were Mick Mars or whoever plays bass for Poison really outsized personalities?

― Sundar (sundar), Sunday, 26 February 2006 17:37 (twenty years ago)

Yeah, I can't even remember the Poison bassist's name. Dude Along For the Ride.

Mick Mars gets credit because he is older than the rest put together.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 26 February 2006 17:39 (twenty years ago)

I guess in part I'm just wondering where the idea of a band as a bunch of wacky individuals (as opposed to a group with a leader or a kind of anonymous collective) comes from.

― Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Sunday, 26 February 2006 17:39 (twenty years ago)

To be honest, I think Sonic Youth come a lot closer than most hair metal bands. Maybe Nirvana (3, obv).

2 xpost

― Sundar (sundar), Sunday, 26 February 2006 17:40 (twenty years ago)

Yeah, I can't even remember the Poison bassist's name. Dude Along For the Ride.

bobby dall. gah, people.

― Autonomous University of Zacatecas (Jody Beth Rosen), Sunday, 26 February 2006 17:40 (twenty years ago)

I suppose there are a fair number of bands with, like, three outsized personalities + quiet background guy (Led Zeppelin comes to mind)

― Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Sunday, 26 February 2006 17:41 (twenty years ago)

Nirvana was kind of like two outsized personalities and one super-outsized personality that just dwarfed the other two.

― Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Sunday, 26 February 2006 17:41 (twenty years ago)

Beach Boys. yeah I know they were a quintet but you had obnoxious frntman Mike Love, resident genius Brian and cuet hunk Dennis. and they predated the Beatles, at least in terms of US releases.

apples & oranges, but lotsa jazz combos thrived on the balance and chemistry between outsized personalities in the same band: Bird & Diz, Miles & Trane and so on.

― m coleman (lovebug starski), Sunday, 26 February 2006 17:44 (twenty years ago)

Beatles as art nouveau Ratpack--Lennon=Sinatra, McCartney=Dino, Ringo=Sammy, Harrison=Steve & Edie

― prince rupert, Sunday, 26 February 2006 17:45 (twenty years ago)

I suppose there are a fair number of bands with, like, three outsized personalities + quiet background guy (Led Zeppelin comes to mind)

-- Abbadavid Berman (Hurtingchie...), February 26th, 2006

Also The Who, The Velvet Underground.

― Sundar (sundar), Sunday, 26 February 2006 18:06 (twenty years ago)

Village People, obv.

― Sundar (sundar), Sunday, 26 February 2006 18:14 (twenty years ago)

Did George Harrison have an outsized personality?

― Freud Junior (Freud Junior), Sunday, 26 February 2006 18:39 (twenty years ago)

He was the spiritual one.

― Sundar (sundar), Sunday, 26 February 2006 18:45 (twenty years ago)

(at least in their later era)

― Sundar (sundar), Sunday, 26 February 2006 18:46 (twenty years ago)

I thought it was the Smart One, the Cute One, the Funny One and the Shy One (at least in the Beatles.)

― Austin Still (Austin, Still), Sunday, 26 February 2006 18:50 (twenty years ago)

That works too.

― Sundar (sundar), Sunday, 26 February 2006 18:55 (twenty years ago)

The Damned.

― Last Of The Famous International Pfunkboys (Kerr), Sunday, 26 February 2006 18:58 (twenty years ago)

Public Enemy: The Angry One, the Crazy One, the Antisemetic One, the DJ.

― Austin Still (Austin, Still), Sunday, 26 February 2006 19:12 (twenty years ago)

The Monkees (yes, yes, I know...)

― ailsa (ailsa), Sunday, 26 February 2006 20:03 (twenty years ago)

Prince Rupert nailed it, the non-Beatle version that's actually contemporary is the Rat Pack. Before that point in time I don't think it would have seemed dignified for members of a pop combo to have individual outsize personalities beyond the Leader, who in general was going to have the same positive, upbeat, swinging personality as any other Leader. That's why you get so many "The Four " type bands. I mean, would it have even gotten into the papers if one of the Andrews Sisters was getting into Aleister Crowley while another was always dishing out the wisecracks? The Rat Pack, by being a supergroup, sidestepped the whole matter - the whole point was that it was four super-size characters in one place.

― Doctor Casino (Doctor Casino), Sunday, 26 February 2006 20:27 (twenty years ago)

I suppose - but their fame as individuals predated their fame as a combo, and its not like anybody gave a shit whether the rat pack's bass player was shy or cute or smart or funny. I think there was some schtick with band members here and there pre-beatles (eg Bo Diddley and Jerome, Johnny Cash and Luther) but it was much more side-kick style banter than every member of the group being a star. i mean maybe some people were intrigued by every member of The Carter Family but somehow I don't think it was in the same way as the bubblegum/boy band model pioneered by Beatles, Stones & Monkees and continued by the Archies, Banana Splits, Jackson 5, Osmonds, Bay City Rollers, NY Dolls, Ramones, Sex Pistols, Cheap Trick, Kiss, Runaways, Spice Girls, Menudo, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Nirvana, Metallica, New Kids on The Block, NSync, The Strokes, etc..

― Fritz Wollner (Fritz), Sunday, 26 February 2006 20:57 (twenty years ago)

wu tang to thread.

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Sunday, 26 February 2006 20:59 (twenty years ago)

I wonder if the same notion of celebrity existed pre-beatles to allow people to really give a shit about that bass players and drummers or whoever. so if you weren't a vocalist or a playing a hot solos all the time, nobody would care about you. also, i wonder how much this concept of the four distinct personalities comes directly from the film of "a hard day's night", itself modeled more on the marx bros. or the goons than any musical tradition. i'm guessing here, of course.

I guess the question is might really be more about how fame worked pre-TV than anything, as the Beatles were the first group to really capitalize on TV, I think.

anyway, great thread, very thought-provoking.

― Fritz Wollner (Fritz), Sunday, 26 February 2006 21:11 (twenty years ago)

Yeah, Wu-Tang, along with the Dungeon Family. The Clash also spring to mind: the impassioned one, the talented one, the handsome one, the junkie / human drum machine one.

― paulhw (paulhw), Sunday, 26 February 2006 22:34 (twenty years ago)

Which makes me think: groups that promoted themselves in that "the gang's all here" style seems to lead to this (ie always photographed together, often "playing their part"). In this sense, this:

http://images.art.com/images/-/Wu-Tang-Clan--C10053800.jpeg

has a lot to do with this:

http://www.atiza.com/imggrupo/theclash_cabe.jpg

― paulhw (paulhw), Sunday, 26 February 2006 22:43 (twenty years ago)

(alright, Topper's missing)

― paulhw (paulhw), Sunday, 26 February 2006 22:44 (twenty years ago)

http://www.u-blog.net/daftpunk/img/Interstella-5555.jpg

― Dan I. (Dan I.), Monday, 27 February 2006 02:33 (twenty years ago)

ah fuck that's geeky sorry.

― Dan I. (Dan I.), Monday, 27 February 2006 02:34 (twenty years ago)

Then there were the jazz groups, usually a combo of top-notch younger players headed by a more famous artist (think Miles Davis playing with Charlie Parker's band.) At some point the younger players would start to overshadow their elders & strike out on their own.

― cracktivity1 (cracktivity1), Monday, 27 February 2006 02:49 (twenty years ago)

Dan I = awesome

― adam (adam), Monday, 27 February 2006 03:09 (twenty years ago)

Even better: Gorillaz.

― Doctor Casino (Doctor Casino), Monday, 27 February 2006 03:46 (twenty years ago)

Beatles as art nouveau Ratpack--Lennon=Sinatra, McCartney=Dino, Ringo=Sammy, Harrison=Steve & Edie

Switch out Steve & Edie for Peter Lawford.

― QuantumNoise (Justin Farrar), Monday, 27 February 2006 03:55 (twenty years ago)

Blur fell into this structure as well too, I think....with the possible exception of Dave, although being "the quiet one" is something in itself.

― Jessie the Monster (scarymonsterrr), Monday, 27 February 2006 04:21 (twenty years ago)

Public Enemy &/or N.W.A. maybe?

― darin (darin), Monday, 27 February 2006 07:35 (twenty years ago)

I thought Dave from Blur's USP was the fact that he was a drunkard who could fly a plane

― Robin Goad (rgoad), Monday, 27 February 2006 08:05 (twenty years ago)

I can't off hand think of many bands pre the Beatles that did this.

During and After them, most bands presented themselves as 'four distinct personalities'. Which is why many of the drummers made solo albums. Because they were signed to the same record contract as the singer and/or lead songwriter.

From the late seventies onwards, the 'musicians' were more 'paid by the band inc' rather than "EMI" itself, for example.

― mark grout (mark grout), Monday, 27 February 2006 15:25 (twenty years ago)

Howbout The Coasters, way back in the '50s/early 60s? Leiber and Stoller specifically wrote their songs with all the vocal parts allocated out to either Carl Gardner or Billy Guy (or, rarely, bass-man Billy Nunn), with Guy taking the more clownish leads.

― Myonga Von Bontee (Myonga Von Bontee), Monday, 27 February 2006 18:32 (twenty years ago)

mars is the george harrisson of motley crue.

― M@tt He1geson (Matt Helgeson), Monday, 27 February 2006 19:15 (twenty years ago)

It's that sort of "Something For Everyone" mentality that goes back AT LEAST (cue N/A's classic equation) as far as the Marx Bros.

― Huk-L (Huk-L), Monday, 27 February 2006 19:23 (twenty years ago)

Groucho = John
Harpo = Paul
Chico = Ringo
Zeppo = George

― Huk-L (Huk-L), Monday, 27 February 2006 19:25 (twenty years ago)

John=Summer
Paul=Autumn
George=Winter
Ringo=Spring

― QuantumNoise (Justin Farrar), Monday, 27 February 2006 20:05 (twenty years ago)

http://www.christcenteredmall.com/stores/art/davinci/last-supper-zoom.jpg

― Huk-L (Huk-L), Monday, 27 February 2006 20:13 (twenty years ago)

There's no need to bring the Polyphonic Spree into this.

― Pleasant Plains /// (Pleasant Plains ///), Monday, 27 February 2006 20:25 (twenty years ago)

In terms of marketing the fact the Beatles were advertised as four separate-but-equal individuals who all had nothing in common (seemingly) outside of playing in the same band/loving rock and roll was definitely unique for the era. Most bands were advertised as more of a collective unit of the same type of person ("He's a Beach Boy") and not as having radically individual members who stood out by themselves ("It's Ringo!").

― Jingo, Monday, 27 February 2006 20:39 (twenty years ago)

Most bands were advertised as more of a collective unit of the same type of person ("He's a Beach Boy") and not as having radically individual members who stood out by themselves ("It's Ringo!").

I think the Beatles maybe had a little bit of both approaches. Yes, they were four individuals but the cover of With the Beatles/Meet the Beatles almost made them look like futuristic clones. Interesting...

― QuantumNoise (Justin Farrar), Monday, 27 February 2006 20:46 (twenty years ago)

They were five but DURAN DURAN!

― LeRooLeRoo (Seb), Monday, 27 February 2006 22:13 (twenty years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.