Thread #129572527
File: Screenshot 2026-03-02 115208.png (74.4 KB)
74.4 KB PNG
the beatles are terrible
10 RepliesView Thread
>>
>>
File: IMG_1130.jpg (1.9 KB)
1.9 KB JPG
>>129572527
>google has more in common with old /mu/ than new /mu/
incredibly sad. beatles posters wouldn't have survived a day pre 2016 /mu/. their band kid humor had no place here and the majority of them are gay which is concerning.
>>
>>
>>
File: Screenshot 2026-03-02 131435.png (78.5 KB)
78.5 KB PNG
are the beatles a boy band?
>>
>>129572559
>incredibly sad
You will be when you read what Google says about >>129572752 , wanker lololol:
The Beatles are often considered the "original" or "prototype" boy band due to their massive, screaming teenage girl fan base, matching suits, and early pop hits, especially during the height of Beatlemania. However, they differ fundamentally from traditional boy bands because they were an organic group, wrote their own music, played their own instruments, and matured into artists, rather than being a manufactured product.
Key Arguments for and Against:
Arguments for "Boy Band":
Beatlemania: Their early 1960s image featured intense, frenzied reactions from young female fans.
Marketing: They had matching haircuts and mop-top suits.
Arguments Against "Boy Band":
Creative Control: They wrote their own material, unlike typical manufactured boy bands.
Instrumentation: They played their own instruments and were a functioning band for years before fame.
Evolution: They quickly evolved beyond simple love songs into complex, artistic music (e.g.Rubber Soul**Revolver).
Conclusion: The Beatles were a pop-rock band that, for a brief periodfunctioned as a boy band in terms of marketing and audience reaction, but they were not manufactured as one. They are often described as the template for later, more manufactured groups.
Boybandfag BTFO as usual. KWAB
>>
>>
>>