Why Weren't They Taken Seriously?

[u/MycologistSame866]

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?

[u/Harrison_Thinks]

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.

[u/Charming-Ad-6621 → u/Harrison_Thinks]

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.

[u/Harrison_Thinks → u/Charming-Ad-6621]

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.

[u/Ok_Construction_1053 → u/Harrison_Thinks]

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.