Why the Beatles will never happen again | Fab Forum

Please consider registering
Guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —






— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

sp_Feed sp_TopicIcon
Why the Beatles will never happen again
No permission to create posts
23 May 2013
6.11pm
Ralphrennick
A Beginning
Forum Posts: 6
Member Since:
23 May 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Mod note: another thread on this topic is here http://www.beatlesbible.com/fo.....r-beatles/

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. 

The following people thank Ralphrennick for this post:

Silly Girl, Matt Busby
23 May 2013
8.32pm
Avatar
Von Bontee
A Hole In The Road
Rishikesh
Forum Posts: 2829
Member Since:
14 December 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall 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
Avatar
Into the Sky with Diamonds
New York
Candlestick Park
Forum Posts: 1608
Member Since:
9 August 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall 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
sp_UserOfflineSmall 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
Avatar
SatanHimself
Hades-on-Leith
Hollywood Bowl
Forum Posts: 666
Member Since:
16 August 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall 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.

The following people thank SatanHimself for this post:

Silly Girl

E is for 'Ergent'.

24 May 2013
7.55pm
Avatar
fabfouremily
Sitting in an English garden
Rishikesh
Forum Posts: 2929
Member Since:
3 May 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall 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.

Moving along in our God given ways, safety is sat by the fire/Sanctuary from these feverish smiles, left with a mark on the door.

(Passover - I. Curtis)

25 May 2013
4.59pm
Avatar
Egroeg Evoli
Across the universe
Candlestick Park
Forum Posts: 1805
Member Since:
6 December 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall 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...

Also known as Egg-Rock, Egg-Roll, E-George, Eggy, Ravioli, Eggroll Eggrolli...

~witty quote~

28 May 2015
5.06am
Wigwam
Candlestick Park
Forum Posts: 1261
Member Since:
17 October 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Do you think it could ever happen again……..?

 

A new Beatles…..Not a new 5 min wonder, manufactured boy band…..that the girls will scream over until they bore of them and everyone else will largely ignore??

…But a band of some talent…….that becomes popular and then flowers and grows and changes beyond all expectations. So that from within the band songs emerge that the whole world will sing…….and want to hear again and again. A band that builds on existing formats and bends and shapes and fits new sounds into our ears. That unites East and West…North and South….Black and White…….And that 45 years after it's last recordings sounds as fresh……and relevant as it did in the recording studio. That 50 years on people will still be writing about and discussing and respecting more with every new thing they learn.?

I hope it can………But I can't see it ever happening again…..What do you think?

The following people thank Wigwam for this post:

Into the Sky with Diamonds
28 May 2015
5.31am
Avatar
Ron Nasty
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 5548
Member Since:
17 December 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

@Wigwam This old thread may interest you as it asks the same question.

"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty

28 May 2015
6.04am
Avatar
Mademoiselle Kitty >^..^<
the Netherlands
Candlestick Park
Forum Posts: 1227
Member Since:
27 March 2015
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I think it can, but it'd probably be a completely new type of music. I actually had an interesting discussion with my mum this morning. It's safe to say the Beatles (but also other great names such as Queen, Michael Jackson, etc) are the modern-day equivalent of the famous classical composers. I do believe the Fab Four are to contemporary music what Mozart was to classical music. I know it's a bold statement to make, but the parallels are there. And just like the popular composers are still relevant today, I also think the Beatles will remain relevant for many, many years. 

Given the current state of the music industry, I highly doubt we'll see this happening again any time soon. But once music goes through another big transformation, the new music will undoubtedly have its own "Beatles". 

The following people thank Mademoiselle Kitty >^..^< for this post:

Into the Sky with Diamonds, Silly Girl

Formerly Known As JPM-Fangirl

Cha-Cha Boom!

'Out There' - 07-06-2015 - Ziggo Dome Amsterdam -- 'One On One' - 12-06-2016 - Pinkpop Festival Landgraaf

4 July 2015
8.44pm
Avatar
Ahhh Girl
sailing on a winedark open sea
Moderator


Forum Posts: 12394
Member Since:
20 August 2013
sp_UserOnlineSmall Online

When Paul was asked if there could ever be another Beatles, here's what he said.

ESQ: Not to diminish your achievements, but The Beatles’ success came at a very specific moment. Clearly, the world was ready for it. Could a band ever have that kind of impact again or has the culture changed too much?

PM: We don’t live in that culture any more, that’s true. We came out of a very rich period. But let’s not forgot, those four boys were fucking good. It wasn’t just to do with the period. You name me another group of four chaps, or chapesses, who had what The Beatles had. Lennon’s skill, intelligence, acerbic wit, McCartney’s melody, whatever he’s got, Harrison’s spirituality, Ringo’s spirit of fun, great drumming. We all played, which is pretty hard. You don’t get a lot of that these days. The noise we made was just those four people playing. We came at the right time. We wrote some pretty good stuff, our own material. We didn’t have writers. Could that happen again? I don’t know. I wish people well but I have a feeling it couldn’t.

He's got a feeling. A feeling he can't hide. I share that feeling with him.

Take a look at post 1 of this thread to see a link to another thread on this topic. That thread is now locked so we can channel the discussion to one thread. Always check the first post in a thread for any mod notes, instructions, information on the purpose of the thread, etc. As a mod, I will try to remember to always update post 1 of a thread if anything about a thread changes.

The following people thank Ahhh Girl for this post:

Silly Girl
4 July 2015
9.59pm
Avatar
Starr Shine?
Waiting in the Sky
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 12262
Member Since:
1 November 2013
sp_UserOnlineSmall Online

The problem with a new Beatles is that they would be making new music so most of the forum peeps will miss it.

The following people thank Starr Shine? for this post:

UnidentifiedFiendishThingy

she was the sun, burning bright and brittle and,https://youtu.be/52nwiTs7bk8

If you can't log in and can't use the forum go here and someone will help you out.

18 October 2015
10.51am
Avatar
meanmistermustard
Moderator



Forum Posts: 19074
Member Since:
1 May 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Gene Simmons has been talking about this very subject to NME and he doesnt think there will be a next Beatles or Kiss either.

""From 1988 until today… give me the new Beatles and the new Stones. Give me just one. You can't. Rock is dead. And the reason for that? Downloading and filesharing. When you stop charging for things, it becomes worthless. And there's gonna have to be a business model that's gonna have to change. 'Cause there are great bands out there, but there's no support system...
Before The Beatles went into the studio to become The Beatles, they played clubs for ten thousand hours. That's years. You have to do something for thousands and thousands of hours before you get any good on it. Nowadays, instant gratification means you can hum in your shower, then wind up on 'The X Factor' and you're on television and you get a recording contract. But almost none of these singers who get recording contracts become huge."

The following people thank meanmistermustard for this post:

Into the Sky with Diamonds

"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris) 

"Don't make your love suffer insecurities; Trade the baggage of "self" to set another one free" ('Paper Skin' - Kendall Payne)

18 October 2015
11.44am
Avatar
Shamrock Womlbs
Waiting for the van to come
Candlestick Park
Forum Posts: 1114
Member Since:
24 March 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

From the McCartney interview quoted above:

 "Lennon’s skill, intelligence, acerbic wit, McCartney’s melody, whatever he’s got, Harrison’s spirituality...…"  .

Spirituality, really? And what about his guitar playing, or his adventures in 12 strings or sitar..?  I think Harrison main contribution to the beatles is his playing and his interest in finding new instruments, not spirituality at all...

The following people thank Shamrock Womlbs for this post:

Ahhh Girl, Silly Girl

Why don't you put it on the toast?

18 October 2015
3.28pm
Avatar
ewe2
Inside the beat
Candlestick Park
Forum Posts: 1593
Member Since:
8 January 2015
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

meanmistermustard said

Gene Simmons has been talking about this very subject to NME and he doesnt think there will be a next Beatles or Kiss either.

""From 1988 until today… give me the new Beatles and the new Stones. Give me just one. You can't. Rock is dead. And the reason for that? Downloading and filesharing. When you stop charging for things, it becomes worthless. And there's gonna have to be a business model that's gonna have to change. 'Cause there are great bands out there, but there's no support system...
Before The Beatles went into the studio to become The Beatles, they played clubs for ten thousand hours. That's years. You have to do something for thousands and thousands of hours before you get any good on it. Nowadays, instant gratification means you can hum in your shower, then wind up on 'The X Factor' and you're on television and you get a recording contract. But almost none of these singers who get recording contracts become huge."

Counterpoint:

Just because there isn't money in it, doesn't mean you aren't good or popular, it means no one can tell you are because no one is being paid to count. Downloading doesn't stop venues putting bands on, being replaced by poker machines does (and in some areas, ridiculous public performance royalty rules). It certainly hasn't (so far) hurt the musical instrument industry. There have always been good live bands who never see the light of day in "industry" terms but that's the industry's fault, not the bands. The industry has turned its back on popular music and is churning out Tin Pan Alley lookalikes like it did back in the 1950's which is why pop music hasn't changed for a decade or so. It was never a support network, it was an exploitation network and its time is over. The industry needs X Factor more than we do, to pretend to itself it has relevance and to keep the myth of how it really works alive.

I think there can be another Beatles, but they won't claim the same kind of focus because I do think that time is past. But someone can and will market themselves entirely on the internet without the help of the "industry" which can't imagine any success outside itself, and they will have that crossover appeal. I don't know if they can pull off the same trick of revitalizing Western music, but someone will have to. The bonus is that there are many defined genres now and someone who can appeal across those is going to be very, very talented. (It's been claimed this has already happened but they turned out to be Kanye West fans).

The following people thank ewe2 for this post:

Shamrock Womlbs, Into the Sky with Diamonds

I'm like Necko only I'm a bassist ukulele synthesizer penguin and also everyone. Or is everyone me? Now I'm a confused bassist ukulele synthesizer penguin everyone who is definitely not @Joe.

5 November 2015
11.07am
Avatar
meanmistermustard
Moderator



Forum Posts: 19074
Member Since:
1 May 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Another article, this time from the Daily Star so not too highbrow, on why there wont be another act like the Beatles. It ties in with the upcoming ITV special 'The Nation's Favourite Beatles Number One' and the '1+' release.

The following people thank meanmistermustard for this post:

Silly Girl

"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris) 

"Don't make your love suffer insecurities; Trade the baggage of "self" to set another one free" ('Paper Skin' - Kendall Payne)

5 November 2015
11.49am
Avatar
Silly Girl
Find me where ye echo lays
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 8613
Member Since:
15 February 2015
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

lillo78 said
From the McCartney interview quoted above:

 "Lennon’s skill, intelligence, acerbic wit, McCartney’s melody, whatever he’s got, Harrison’s spirituality...…"  .

Spirituality, really? And what about his guitar playing, or his adventures in 12 strings or sitar..?  I think Harrison main contribution to the beatles is his playing and his interest in finding new instruments, not spirituality at all...

Perhaps he means his spirited guitar playing. a-hard-days-night-george-10 

But yeah, I see what you mean. 

Wot ye lookin at?Music is like a psychiatrist. You can tell your guitar things that you can't tell people. - Sir Paul McCartneyToo fab four you, sorry
 New to Forumpool? You can introduce yourself here
5 November 2015
8.50pm
Avatar
C.R.A.
Land of the Rising Sun
Ed Sullivan Show
Forum Posts: 468
Member Since:
4 February 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

ewe2 said

meanmistermustard said

Gene Simmons has been talking about this very subject to NME and he doesnt think there will be a next Beatles or Kiss either.

""From 1988 until today… give me the new Beatles and the new Stones. Give me just one. You can't. Rock is dead. And the reason for that? Downloading and filesharing. When you stop charging for things, it becomes worthless. And there's gonna have to be a business model that's gonna have to change. 'Cause there are great bands out there, but there's no support system...
Before The Beatles went into the studio to become The Beatles, they played clubs for ten thousand hours. That's years. You have to do something for thousands and thousands of hours before you get any good on it. Nowadays, instant gratification means you can hum in your shower, then wind up on 'The X Factor' and you're on television and you get a recording contract. But almost none of these singers who get recording contracts become huge."

Counterpoint:

Just because there isn't money in it, doesn't mean you aren't good or popular, it means no one can tell you are because no one is being paid to count. Downloading doesn't stop venues putting bands on, being replaced by poker machines does (and in some areas, ridiculous public performance royalty rules). It certainly hasn't (so far) hurt the musical instrument industry. There have always been good live bands who never see the light of day in "industry" terms but that's the industry's fault, not the bands. The industry has turned its back on popular music and is churning out Tin Pan Alley lookalikes like it did back in the 1950's which is why pop music hasn't changed for a decade or so. It was never a support network, it was an exploitation network and its time is over. The industry needs X Factor more than we do, to pretend to itself it has relevance and to keep the myth of how it really works alive.

I think there can be another Beatles, but they won't claim the same kind of focus because I do think that time is past. But someone can and will market themselves entirely on the internet without the help of the "industry" which can't imagine any success outside itself, and they will have that crossover appeal. I don't know if they can pull off the same trick of revitalizing Western music, but someone will have to. The bonus is that there are many defined genres now and someone who can appeal across those is going to be very, very talented. (It's been claimed this has already happened but they turned out to be Kanye West fans).

I don't know if it's possible to agree with your post any more than I am right now, other than the downloading bit.  I still have serious reservations that there will ever be a technology that eliminates freeloading (filesharing) even though (IMO) its the only thing that can save music as an industry in the end.  At the same time, because of the technology, I'm not so sure we actually need an 'industry' as we know it right now.

Back on topic; the part I bolded... while that was happening, we also need to remember that cultures in the U.S. began leaking into each other, largely due to radio (damn shame about it now) influencing those two guys from Pennsylvania who wrote a crazy song about dancing all night long and then had that one-eyed kid from Michigan with the curl of hair on his forehead sing it, the brown-eyed handsome man from Missouri who could play a guitar just like ringing a bell, the gangly kid from Texas who dared write his own songs and that truck driver from Mississippi who just wanted to sing to his momma, just to name a few... all happening during those years.  All these people, along with countless others from places in New York, Detroit, Kentucky... were all being heard and devoured, enigmatically, by teenagers living in a British port city struggling to rebuild after a terrible war...

Once rock took off, it became littered with instances of really talented people, all of relative age, all attending nearby (if not the same) schools... how many bands started in schools?  Neighborhood garages... the band Survivor came together in a garage 4 blocks from where I lived... all coming together to create some really great and important music.  Many of them comprised of a primary songwriting team.  And many of those teams being damn-fine songwriters.

But they all happened after the die had been cast and social anxieties had been relieved and countless genres attracting narrow demographics had all been developed.

There were no wars that dragged diverse nations together or threw them apart, no national horrors that sent the public into a funk, no need to burn off energy or shake off the yolk of a suppressive generation.  In my memory, it seemed like we all kept partying even while avoiding the draft or waiting in line for gasoline or watching the leader of the free world lie on national television.  Much of this is still happening.

Was it fate that just those four (and, to a greater degree, just Lennon and McCartney) were the focus of some cosmic alliance that resulted in The Beatles, never to happen again?  Or was it coincidence?

If you consider what it took to have them, maybe we don't want another Beatles. 

But astronomical as the odds seem, history says "if it happened once..."

So I'm hoping.  My son is 13 years old and practices guitar.  All day long, of his own volition, he listens to The Beatles.  And Sam Cooke, Carl Perkins... and Van Halen and AC/DC... and new stuff that I'm not familiar with.

You just never know.

“Send John out first; he’s the one they want.”

~ someone said it, dammit.

Memphis, 1966

5 November 2015
8.59pm
Avatar
Starr Shine?
Waiting in the Sky
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 12262
Member Since:
1 November 2013
sp_UserOnlineSmall Online

Annadog40 said
The problem with a new Beatles is that they would be making new music so most of the forum peeps will miss it.

And they would be a different band and plus it takes lots of years for them to be lasting so it would take a while for the effects of Beatle level

she was the sun, burning bright and brittle and,https://youtu.be/52nwiTs7bk8

If you can't log in and can't use the forum go here and someone will help you out.

5 November 2015
9.00pm
Avatar
Starr Shine?
Waiting in the Sky
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 12262
Member Since:
1 November 2013
sp_UserOnlineSmall Online

The next "Beatles" wouldn't be rock they would be in a new genre which most forum members ain't doing.

she was the sun, burning bright and brittle and,https://youtu.be/52nwiTs7bk8

If you can't log in and can't use the forum go here and someone will help you out.

No permission to create posts
Forum Timezone: America/Chicago

Most Users Ever Online: 597

Currently Online: Ahhh Girl, Starr Shine?, sir walter raleigh, Evangeline, Paulrus
64 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

Starr Shine?: 12255

Silly Girl: 8612

parlance: 7065

mr. Sun king coming together: 6429

Mr. Kite: 6131

trcanberra: 5851

Ron Nasty: 5547

Necko: 5452

mithveaen: 4618

AppleScruffJunior: 4055

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 87

Members: 3634

Moderators: 4

Admins: 2

Forum Stats:

Groups: 3

Forums: 42

Topics: 4011

Posts: 227523

Newest Members:

JohnBeatle, Michael Varn, asiffk, Ram4, BackInTheUSSR

Moderators: Ahhh Girl: 12386, meanmistermustard: 19073, Zig: 8708, Joe: 4500

Administrators: Joe: 4500, Ellie: 4

Members Birthdays
sp_BirthdayIcon
Today: None
Upcoming: bigpale