The Beatles- never to be repeated?

Right from the off, during their seedy days in Hamburg up to their burgeoning days at the Cavern, these four boys stood out as 'different'.

It was not just their strong sound, and later their innovative and experimental music that stood out, but their humour, charisma, originality and offbeat humility.

I don't think that it's a matter of them being 'in the right place and time'- they helped make that era in their own style and fashion, which often followed them.

Whichever period they, as a group, would have been born into, they would (IMO) together have dominated the musical generation with their sheer talent?

It was soon recognised that, with two and often three songwriters- unheard of for bands to write their own songs then- they were highly unique, diversely creative, and uncommonly productive.

Their sound, the beat, their almost casual knack of churning out popular and critically-acclaimed tracks (by music critics and music peers alike), which often went to no.1, were much copied and envied by lesser bands in their gigantic wake.

By their late career, by which time they had almost casually notched up 17 UK single no.1's (20 in the US) and left every single other artist and band standing, in every sense, the Lennon-McCartney team were recognised worldwide as creative geniuses.

Yet, had they been a selfish, unprofessional and creatively uncaring band, they could have simply milked every album (as Michael Jackson did) and perhaps had another 5-10 UK no.1 singles?

So, given that bands are rarely even blessed by just one singer/songwriter/musician of the creative calibre of Lennon/McCartney and also Harrison, let alone three, will there ever be such a like as the Fab Four again? I personally don't think so.

My mum hates them.

And they ruined eric claptons solo on while my guitar gently weeps because it didn't have the "Beatles" sound.

They did did do one or two good songs though and contrarily my dad really likes them.

Right from the off, during their seedy days in Hamburg up to their burgeoning days at the Cavern, these four boys stood out as 'different'.

It was not just their strong sound, and later their innovative and experimental music that stood out, but their humour, charisma, originality and offbeat humility.

 

I don't think that it's a matter of them being 'in the right place and time'- they helped make that era in their own style and fashion, which often followed them.

Whichever period they, as a group, would have been born into, they would (IMO) together have dominated the musical generation with their sheer talent?

 

It was soon recognised that, with two and often three songwriters- unheard of for bands to write their own songs then- they were highly unique, diversely creative, and uncommonly productive.

Their sound, the beat, their almost casual knack of churning out popular and critically-acclaimed tracks (by music critics and music peers alike), which often went to no.1, were much copied and envied by lesser bands in their gigantic wake.

 

By their late career, by which time they had almost casually notched up 17 UK single no.1's (20 in the US) and left every single other artist and band standing, in every sense, the Lennon-McCartney team were recognised worldwide as creative geniuses.

Yet, had they been a selfish, unprofessional and creatively uncaring band, they could have simply milked every album (as Michael Jackson did) and perhaps had another 5-10 UK no.1 singles?

 

So, given that bands are rarely even blessed by just one singer/songwriter/musician of the creative calibre of Lennon/McCartney and also Harrison, let alone three, will there ever be such a like as the Fab Four again? I personally don't think so.

What a great opening tribute with which I fully agree

Summary of The Beatles career: They had very little competition until the Rolling Stones, at which point The Beatles disappeared in a puff of yellow smoke.

[gets popcorn and ducks for cover]

They were good fillers-in until their superiors THE MONKEES came along.

[Hides behind Tony]

Thanks, Cressida!

Tony and Alchresearch- hmmm? Lol.

Kimerajamm, I suppose you're right, most eras will produce some phenomenon that sets it apart?

They were good fillers-in until their superiors THE MONKEES came along.

 

[Hides behind Tony]

I thought the Beatles were very over rated. More of a Stones man myself.

So I'll be third in line behind you and Tony...

No, there won't be another 'Beatles' just as there won't be another 'Freddie Mercury' Just look at the dross we get today!

Goo goo g'joob

Although their style of music contrasted somewhat, I thought that both the Stones and the Beatles were great. The 60's wouldn't have been the same without them and their music..

The Beatles were all right but Wings had Linda McCartney.

AND Wings recorded Mary Had A Little Lamb.

It's what we call a no-brainer.

What I like about The Beatles is that every album trumped the last one and musically and creatively they reached a crescendo just like the one in "a day in the life"! It's fascinating to listen to how they evolved culminating in the masterpiece Abbey Road.

(which is where things should have ended cough cough, let it be)

So there'll never be another Beatles but we've had Queen, Radiohead, Kate Bush since then...

i like beatles vury much. their songs sound so pretty.