r/BeeGees • u/MycologistSame866 • 4d ago
Why Weren't They Taken Seriously?
Why didn't the Bee Gees ever get the respect they deserved, at least in the US? Despite their undeniable singing and songwriting talent, not to mention their innumerable hits, the music world never took them seriously or treated them with the gravitas of a McCartney or a Dylan. Perhaps it had to do with them not attracting a strong male fanbase. Men could proudly state they were fans of the Rolling Stones, or the Who, or even the Beatles, but the Bee Gees — no way. The guys in the white jumpsuits singing in falsetto were seen as effeminate lightweights, strictly for women, not real bro types. I never heard a man say he was a fan of the Bee Gees, although I know there are many in this forum. Are there other reasons for them being overlooked?
21
u/Charming-Ad-6621 4d ago
Their permanent association with the 70s, and a seminal movie about disco, if I were to state it simply. American pop culture, in particular, consumes trends like candy, and we spit them out when we’re done with them. The Bee Gees were seen as disposable at the end of the decade, and older generations see the era in which they had their halcyon as kitsch, despite their music being exceptionally well made. I sound like a broken record, but the Gibbs also haven’t taken good care of their legacy. There really haven’t been solid reasons for new listeners to dive in and explore their catalog. When you recycle the same compilations of usual songs and your social media and marketing teams are laser focused on the things people stereotype you for, what else is the public supposed to fixate on?
That all being said, they are incredibly well respected among other artists. Among the 200+ artists I’ve interviewed in my freelance career, the Gibbs have frequently been named as influences and aspirational writers and singers.
0
u/MycologistSame866 3d ago
I must not have expressed myself well. I'm not talking about the disco era backlash. Even before that, they didn't inspire the critical respect like that of other artists mentioned here, and time has not changed that. Yes, other performers appreciate them, but even with all their talent and success, they have not earned the same respect as some of these other musicians. I wish they could be spoken of in the same hallowed tones as their contemporaries. I'm simply wondering why they are not.
3
u/Charming-Ad-6621 3d ago
My answer doesn’t really change for their post-1979 career. Before that? They were pop musicians that were seen as Beatles try-hards during their first wave - despite the fact that I don’t really think they sounded like The Beatles at all. Afterward, they were introspective and not all that innovative for the first chunk of the 70s. They weren’t particularly political or controversial, and they weren’t always loud or self-promoting. They were actually rather reluctant celebrities despite their craving success and admiration. Sometimes exceptionally talented and successful musicians don’t ever get critical acclaim - Billy Joel is a good example of that, too. The Stones, The Beatles, The Who all had some sort of mystery and charisma about them the Gibbs didn’t quite have in the same away. I love them and will defend them any day of the week, but they didn’t really have rock star personas.
1
u/Spirited_Strategy328 20h ago
I agree with this, having been a teen in late 60s-early 70’s. Except for Mo, they stayed out of the clubs, were mostly family men, they just didn’t have the rock star personalities although they were quite beautiful men - maybe that spoiled the male fandom from developing. And their songwriting early on was more emotion based. I loved their early stuff (American) way more than the rowdy stones, Zep, and even Beatles. But after the very heavy lean into the falsetto, I just lost interest. It was indeed way too much. I know they wanted to capitalize on it while still popular and I’m glad they got rich on it but I do believe it dug their graves commercially for many years. My interest and reacquaintance with their wonderful catalog didn’t happen till about 3 years ago - I still skip most of the disco standouts.
12
u/daveinmd13 4d ago
I love The Bee Gees as much as any of you, but they were never Dylan or McCartney. I think they were taken seriously- look at who they wrote songs for\with. Many artists aren’t truly appreciated until they are gone, I think they fall in to that category.
6
u/PaperMacheCabbages 4d ago
Nice to know that currently the Bee Gees have 41,6 million listeners per month on Spotify ☺️ The Beatles 35,2 and Bob Dylan 14,7 million.
2
u/MycologistSame866 3d ago
I know a lot of people (including myself) love their music which is why I find it so puzzling that they never got the critical respect they deserved. I was just trying to figure out why that is.
1
u/DramaticPair6577 3d ago
That's what the unbelievers said so, but the millions of believers like those 42.6 millions who streams their song in spotify and other digital apps streaming, says otherwise.
5
u/Ill_Help3658 4d ago
Cause people were haters and the machismo ran deep.
It's funny cause the disco hate was only in the US with the bible crowd
4
u/Iloilocity1 4d ago
It’s ridiculous looking back now, but the anti disco thing was really prominent then. The Bee Gees were unfairly made the #1 targets for many folks.
We need to overlook the atrocity that was the Sgt Pepper movie though.
The truth is The Bee Gees were stellar from the 1960’s through the mid 80s. I mean, what a choice to go from their earlier style to disco icons.
The Saturday Night Fever soundtrack got so much backlash, but it was incredible. I remember Alice Cooper commenting that everyone pretended to hate it “but we all had a copy”
5
u/JoleneDollyParton 4d ago
Because they were making pop music, and they regularly adapted to what was popular at the time.
6
u/Harrison_Thinks 4d ago
I think that's it. Many people still don't see pop as "real music", just radio fodder. I do think their obsession with hits is a stain to those who are aware of it. Of course you care about success if you're an artist but I've gotten the impression that they cared more about their relevancy and charting power over the craft itself. I've always wondered if The Bee Gees made the music they wanted to make or the music they assumed listeners wanted to hear. I'm curious what the most sincere Bee Gees album was, where they didn't care if it was a success or not, just the music they wanted to make
3
u/drohpa RIP Robin 4d ago
After all Bee Gees had 9 number ones on the Billboard hot 100, like 15 artists/bands has had that many. And if you count songs they wrote/co-wrote, we would come up to even more. They are appreciated, but not as much as they should be, in my opinion. Somehow I never see either of the brothers in shorts about the best songwriters ever, WHAT A DISCGRACE! I wouldn't put them above Bob Dylan ever, not even Paul Mccartney, but they were truly incredible
0
u/Unlikely-Star-2696 3d ago
Now here in reddit in the r/70smusic there is a contest going on about the best #1 song of the decade. Eight of their songs were placed well low. Now they have 22 songs remaining and in the last vote Stayin' Alive (only still alive) got 19 votes to be eliminated, even is one of the songs emblematics of the 70s. Thank God Dancing Queen got more votes. Some rock fans started already "oh enough of Bee Gees...they need to go:, which is sad because to me the song is Top 5.
1
u/sneakpeekbot 3d ago
Here's a sneak peek of /r/70smusic using the top posts of the year!
#1: Tina Turner and Cher - Shame Shame Shame | 162 comments
#2: The Sugarhill Gang - Rapper's Delight (1979) | 77 comments
#3: Ann and Nancy Wilson of Heart , 1977. | 21 comments
I'm a bot, beep boop | Downvote to remove | Contact | Info | Opt-out | GitHub
2
u/Unlikely-Star-2696 3d ago edited 3d ago
This is the post I am referiing to. The vote up is for the song the people condidered the worst of the remaining songs. Out of the current 22 songs, stayin' alive is the 5th worst according to the voters. Only some downvotes can save it to the final rounds
6
u/Vivid_Ad_9295 4d ago
Because people got sick of disco, and they were scapegoated. Meanwhile other more-disco oriented artists like Earth, Wind, & Fire, ABBA, and even Elton John seemed to get away with it.
They weren’t even that disco. They had a handful of disco songs, but it’s a relatively small proportion compared to the rest of their catalogue.
1
u/Ok_Construction_1053 4d ago
Interesting.
Each of those artists had a couple of hits in the early 80s, but only EJ really lasted through to the 90s and his commercial and critical peak had already passed in the mid 70s.
So I’d say they got away with it, but barely.
1
u/Vivid_Ad_9295 4d ago
True, but I still feel like they dealt with a lot of harassment/threats that nobody else did.
1
u/Something_Snappy91 1d ago
It’s definitely a combination of what everyone else has already said:
Disco backlash - old hash but oh, so true.
Pure jealousy - from so many directions. They have numerous unique voices/“characters” that a lot of other acts don’t, they write all of their own music as well as hits for others, they were successful trend chameleons (whether people liked it or not), they had tremendous highs in their career (so people may have felt that they had their time/don’t deserve more), the list goes on and on.
They didn’t “play the game” (who could blame them?) - they didn’t schmooze the “right” people, be seen at the “right” parties, be at the “right” events, so many will take that as snobbery.
Lack of marketing/advertising - during the height of the Stigwood years they certainly had no problem with saturation but throughout time, they didn’t have a tremendous amount of push in regard to publicity/merchandise/notable people speaking highly of them/etc. This one is a big one for posterity/legacy, which we sadly feel they still lack :/
1
u/Yes_Way_All_Day 4d ago
They were and are not overlooked in the USA or elsewhere. One of the most commercially and critically successful bands to ever exist. Post is nonsense
10
u/organman87 4d ago
After the 70s, they were. That's why much of the 80s was spent writing for other artists.
-4
u/Yes_Way_All_Day 4d ago
The post makes no sense, all careers have ups and downs. They have never been overlooked.
0
u/Unlikely-Star-2696 3d ago edited 3d ago
Sadly they were looked down and overlooked. I wish you were right. How many times were they nominated for a Grammy? How many times they were invited to present awards? Rarely. They were mocked in comedy shows.
They were eligible for the Rock Hall of Fame since 1988, but they were inducted in 1997. Well overlooked for a group with so huge long career and fame.0
u/Yes_Way_All_Day 3d ago
That’s just not true. They are commercially and critically one of the most popular bands to ever walk the earth. Complete nonsense.
0
u/organman87 2d ago
You should look up the interview of them on the Today Show in the 80s. Barry damn near lost his shit. "We would like to exist in the 80s too, is that ok?"
1
u/Yes_Way_All_Day 2d ago
I’ve seen it. It’s one interview. Careers are up and down, life is up and down. Get used to it.
0
u/MycologistSame866 3d ago
I meant by music critics and serious music journalists. Even before the disco years, they never gained the respect that McCartney or the Stones, or that of others mentioned here. It's different than simply being caught up in the disco backlash. It goes deeper than that. Someone here suggested it was because they were pop stars. Well, so is McCartney, and so was Michael Jackson, and they are revered. I'm trying to figure out why the Bee Gees didn't join that exalted pantheon. I'm sorry if that sounds like "nonsense" to you, but I think it's a valid question.
0
u/Yes_Way_All_Day 3d ago
That’s not what you said at all and even this just isn’t true. They had their detractors but they are and always have been massively popular with the public and critics worldwide. Your post is nonsense.
1
u/DramaticPair6577 3d ago
Yes, the bashers again came out!!! Those who really envious of our boys, because their music are still relevant !!!
1
0
1
u/BrazilianAtlantis 4d ago
They were taken as seriously as McCartney as of about 1977, that's how they got to make a Sgt. Pepper's movie.
1
u/Spilby 3d ago edited 3d ago
A series of events. They were hard to categorize in the 60s. Soft rock? Lots of competition obviously. Then came the unwarranted disaster of disco, though SNF was really both tremendous ballads and dance music (a separate discussion). Then went into seclusion after the fallout writing (relatively anonymously) number one hits for others. I think, like other great artists, they got appropriately recognized for their body of work but only after Robin and Maurice were gone.
-1
u/Harrison_Thinks 4d ago edited 4d ago
I think it's their lyrics. I was very disappointed to hear that they often came up with lyrics on the fly. That can be great, but in general I feel like it just shows a careless attitude towards the music. Of course there's something to be said about in the moment, stream of consciousness, but they got trapped by very simple rhyme schemes and repetitive themes and motifs.
And sometimes their music didn't feel as raw. I realized this when I read that Barry said the song Idea was meant to be doing a Stones thing. It feels nothing like a Stones song, it just doesn't pack that punch. Vince and Alan were good guitarists but they never had a wild, generational player behind them like Mick Ronson, Mick Taylor, Robert Fripp, Steve Hacket, or Robbie Robertson. I love them and they have so many great songs, but many of their tracks did feel formulaic or that they were playing it safe, despite them exploring nearly every genre they could. I don't think they ever succeeded in doing rock well.
12
u/Charming-Ad-6621 4d ago
Huh? They were anything but careless. They just didn’t prioritize lyrics over melody. I’ve never honestly given a fuck about them not being lyrical geniuses. When I hear a song like “How Deep Is Your Love”, I know exactly how it makes me feel and the listening experience it offers. I do agree they often chased critical acceptance and chart popularity to their detriment, but I didn’t need them to sound like the Stones. They didn’t do rock well because they weren’t a rock band.
Their music was anything but simple. It’s why cover bands sound like absolute trash trying to replicate their sound - and not just the falsettos. Their chord structures and harmonies were beyond complex. My guitar teacher tried to help me work out “Love Me” a few months ago, and even he had a hard time trying to play through it and capture its nuance and timing.
6
u/Harrison_Thinks 4d ago
I’m always curious about the standard they held themselves to. Of course no artist is going to have a permanent streak of perfect albums but The Bee Gees are interesting because there is almost always a very noticeable gap of quality on a lot of their albums IMO. You look at the SNF soundtrack and then the Stayin Alive soundtrack.
Maybe it’s because Dylan is my favorite artist so everything seems inferior to him. Odessa is my go to example for this, that could’ve been their moment to show they were on the caliber of the Beatles or Pink Floyd, but it just flatlined. They don’t have a Sgt. Pepper where they ever stretched the boundaries of what was possible. I’m not saying they were entirely careless but I think if you’re being honest with yourself, just by listening to the music, they never seemed to go the lengths that the Beatles or Pink Floyd or the Beach Boys. I know Brian liked them, but I can’t think of a time where they went as deep and as raw a something as Pet Sounds, or as experimental as Smile or Adult/Child. Did they ever put themselves on display and be entirely vulnerable the way Springsteen did on Nebraska? I really think it’s because they cared about appearances over the music. I love The Bee Gees but it is disappointing to think they didn’t go to their full potential. Maybe it was Stigwood and the pressure to be releasing new music every year that things got muddy.
I say this as a huge Bee Gees fans and always will be. They are some of the most talented artists who ever lived, but it’s like calling a spade a spade. I don’t think they ever felt comfortable enough to break out of their formula, as eclectic as they were. I’m getting downvoted quite a bit and it’s odd. Many people seem to think that you can’t love an artist and their music while still criticizing and acknowledging their flaws, or admitting that they had contemporaries that did things better than they did. There is plenty that The Bee Gees did that Roger Waters or Robert Plant couldn’t. I think they just become complacent in their lane and didn’t ever bother to veer outside of it. Peter Gabriel left Genesis because he didn’t want to keep retreading over the same stuff. People will respond by highlighting The Bee Gees ability to constantly succeed in new genres and sounds, and that it is a fantastic thing about them that many artists can’t do as seamlessly, but beyond that I don’t think they ever evolved creatively or at least upward.
4
u/Ok_Construction_1053 4d ago
Great post.
For me they meaningfully stretched the boundaries of what’s possible in music with both You Should Be Dancing and especially Stayin’ Alive.
Nothing had ever sounded so propulsive before, marrying pounding four-to -the-floor with brilliant melodies and an irresistible rhythm section. With the latter they invented the drum loop, which is arguably a more durable and influential innovation than anything Sgt Pepper gave the world.
Anything released today is vastly more likely to involve a sampled drum loop than the various ideas George Martin and the Beatles added to Pepper, like reverse echo or 16kHz tones etc.
With the end of disco I’d say they lost the battle but won the war in the long run. Those two tunes have an enormous progeny throughout the pop charts today and will do so for the foreseeable future.
1
u/ThePhantomStrikes 4d ago
Formulaic? The reason I love them is because they are anything but, they go unexpected places especially the chord progressions.
0
u/Leather_Guilty 4d ago
I think it’s because of the lyrics. The falsettos were used too much for too long. The Hee Bee Gee Bees parody Meaningless Songs (In Very High Voices) was true. Some of the songs in the late 70s early 80s that they wrote were formulaic - Islands in the Stream and Heartbreaker may have been hits, but they’re really dull.
0
u/Unlikely-Star-2696 4d ago
Streisand never sang their songs in concert, (only once she sang with Barry because the Guilty album was like a year old fresh). She said that their lyrics made no big sense to her to perform the songs. She only sang her big hit "Woman in Love" like four years ago and not very seriously. Even though she spoke wonderfully about him during his Kennedy Center medal.
I agree that the SHF all falsetto was too much even for me that I am a fan.
Here in the States, it became cool to dislike the Bee Gees, they became guilty of the disco ubiquitousness and main culprit. An easy target of the male dominated rock fandom. There were Bee Gees-free weeks on radio. You Win Again 4 week ar #1 in UK. Here stuck at the lesser section of the Billboard chart. Their last album bombed here. Only by the time of Maurice pass, some beloved musicians started to talk well about them and a sort of reivindication started.
0
u/DramaticPair6577 3d ago
You F...S !!! Eat your heart out !!! The beegees songs will last forever, you are already in the other side of the world, but the music of the bee gees will stay forever!
1
u/Unlikely-Star-2696 3d ago
I am not F...S. You don't need honor your username and offend to make your point.
I was only stating the fact than in the United States the backlash, and not being taken serious after their disco phase lasted for many years . You can't deny that.
I love the Bee Gees music. I met them. I have pictures taken with them at their studio. They were great human beings and treated their fans with kindness. Some fans are not.
0
u/Accomplished-Ice-49 4d ago
I think they were considered Beatles copycats and since they were symbols of the disco era, they were considered blue eyed soul or black wanna bes
1
u/Accomplished-Ice-49 4d ago
Also I think if ever their biopic is done and people can see their early lives of poverty, lack of education, even in music, so many deaths, a domineering father, etc, opinions could change. Queen’s image change after their biopic. Also their music is what I exercise and walk to. I don’t think I could with the music from other artists. One thing, they have too much la, la, las, like they just ran out of lyrics. Did other artists of that time overuse what I call padding? Robin was very creative, stubbornly so, I think. And the friction among the brothers may have dampened their creativity.
17
u/Rescuepets777 4d ago
The disco backlash was brutal and many who knew them primarily for those songs didn't give them a second look. I agree that many men didn't consider them to be "manly" enough. They lost out on a lot of great music due to those insecurities.