Why the Beatles will never happen again | Yesterday... and today | Fab forum

Please consider registering
Guest

Log In Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —

  
 

— Match —

   

— Forum Options —

   

Minimum search word length is 4 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

Why the Beatles will never happen again
23 May 2013
6.11pm
Ralphrennick
A Beginning
Forum Posts: 6
Member Since:
23 May 2013
Offline

It's just a mathematical anomoly that the two best songwriters of a century in a particular genre would be born in the same decade, never mind being roughly the same age, in the same country, same city, and after all that end up in the same band.  Because usually hugely talented people don't like to share the spotlight with someone else on their same level.  It would be like if Michael Jackson and Madonna in the dance music/pop genre, had somehow ended up writing songs for the same group. 

23 May 2013
8.32pm
Von Bontee
A Hole In The Road
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 2206
Member Since:
14 December 2009
Offline

I've got nothing against Madonna or Michael (and I own several of their albums) but I don't think either one are in the same league as Lennon-McCartney, if you're talking about playing/singing/songwriting/composing. As celebrities & pop phenomenons, definitely. (Plus they're much better dancers too!) A better comparison to McCartney would be Prince, as far as matching skill sets goes.

One day, a tape-op got a tape on backwards, he went to play it, and it was all "Neeeradno-undowarrroom" and it was "Wow! Sounds Indian!" -- Paul McCartney
23 May 2013
9.26pm
Into the Sky with Diamonds
New York
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 1316
Member Since:
10 August 2011
Offline

Ralphrennick makes a good point, and one that I often marveled at.

But it does happen. In orthopedics,  two of the biggest names in knee biomechanics (Maquet and Pauwels) happen to have come from nearby towns in Belgium and lived around the same time. And yet, even so, they didn't live in the exact same town and meet when they were teenagers!

With the Beatles, you also have to add Harrison and Starr. Neither is/has been a genius, but as often noted on this Forum, they fit in perfectly!

In music, you'd have to go with Mozart and Bach and a couple of other musicians who'd be capable of fitting in with both.

 

"Into the Sky with Diamonds" (the Beatles and the Race to the Moon – a history)
23 May 2013
9.37pm
Ralphrennick
A Beginning
Forum Posts: 6
Member Since:
23 May 2013
Offline

Von Bontee said
I've got nothing against Madonna or Michael (and I own several of their albums) but I don't think either one are in the same league as Lennon-McCartney, if you're talking about playing/singing/songwriting/composing. As celebrities & pop phenomenons, definitely. (Plus they're much better dancers too!) A better comparison to McCartney would be Prince, as far as matching skill sets goes.

No I don't think either of them are in the same league as songwriters (although MJ's way with a pop hook might be close).  I guess I was going more on sales and total number of hit songs when trying to compare rock with another genre.  And absolutely, Prince is amazing.  As great a songwriter as he was, he might also be one of the most underrated guitarists of all time.

 

I suppose another good reason a phenomenon like the Beatles won't happen again is that music is so fragmented.  Back then there were a couple big Top 40 stations in each market, and they played all the best rock, R&B, Soul, whatever was a hit.  Now there are so many genres and subgenres of music; terrestrial radio is dying, and people listen to their own music on ipod or make their own Pandora stations based on just what they like.  I doubt with the way things are now there could be one group that captures everyone's attention in the dramatic way the Beatles did.

 

It was just a perfect confluence of factors, the right guys met at the right time, in the right era.  I can't see any single musician or group now having the cultural impact they did, to where, as my dad says, the day after the first Ed Sullivan appearance, all the kids at his school were combing their hair a different way.

24 May 2013
3.38am
SatanHimself
Hades-on-Leith
Candlestick Park
Forum Posts: 697
Member Since:
16 August 2012
Offline

Add this to the reasons:

What genre were/are the Beatles?  While the early albums were for the most part straightforward rock with a few curveballs, the band eventually made albums and singles that were completely uncategorizable by modern standards.  "Yellow Submarine" "Elenor Rigby", "Within You Without You", "Hey Jude", "When I'm 64", "Honey Pie"...  The list goes on.   No band today could ever release songs in so many styles and expect any success.

I'm actually hard-pressed to name one other band that ever did it.  The Rolling Stones had a few diversions, but even they stuck mostly to a formula.  The Who may qualify, but they really were never a huge crossover band.  You either liked them, you hated them or you just knew a handful of songs on the radio.

E is for 'Ergent'.
24 May 2013
7.55pm
fabfouremily
Sitting in an English garden
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 2949
Member Since:
3 May 2012
Offline

I think they appealed to the general public, as well. I know at first it was all about how long their hair was and the fact that they were from up north but once they had been in the public eye for a bit, and most in the UK knew of them, people got to see how charming these four lads were. I know they're not all the same but if you look at the majority of artists nowadays, a lot of them haven't got that (for whatever reason).

That's a contributing factor as well, I think.

''We're just knocked out. We heard about the sell out. You gotta get an album out, you owe it to the people. We're so happy we can hardly count.''

25 May 2013
4.59pm
Egroeg Evoli
Across the universe
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 1665
Member Since:
6 December 2012
Offline

This has probably already been said in some way, but I think one of the reasons would be that The Beatles have already changed things, and now those things can't really be changed. For example, The Beatles' music fit into many genres, and most people didn't listen to very many genres before they listened to The Beatles. Today, there are many genres of music, and people listen to a lot of them (although not all by the same artist). Also, The Beatles wore their hair long, and boys/men didn't do that before The Beatles were popular. Today, people wear their hair at all different lengths. There are probably many more examples. So, even if there were an artist/group similar to The Beatles today, they wouldn't be able to change things as drastically as The Beatles did.

I don't know if that makes any sense...

Do you want to know a secret? Read my username backwards. ~ ~ ~ - - - . . . - - - ~ ~ ~ Also known as Egg-Rock, Egg-Roll, E-George, Eggy...

☮ & <3

Forum Timezone: Europe/London

Most Users Ever Online: 597

Currently Online:
51 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

meanmistermustard: 10554

mr. Sun king coming together: 6916

Ahhh Girl: 5635

parlance: 5597

Annadog40: 4861

mithveaen: 4651

Zig: 4609

Mr. Kite: 4398

Ron Nasty: 3231

fabfouremily: 2949

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 88

Members: 2698

Moderators: 4

Admins: 2

Forum Stats:

Groups: 3

Forums: 34

Topics: 3146

Posts: 141595

Newest Members: eolledelm, void, lematalk65, rzleromer, JonoTheFifthBeatle

Moderators: Ahhh Girl: 5635, meanmistermustard: 10554, Zig: 4609, Joe: 3497

Administrators: Joe: 3497, Ellie: 1

Members Birthdays
Today: None
Upcoming: None