Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums
Navy Vet.

Would the Beatles still be the Beatles

Recommended Posts

As a kid I still liked my parent's Big Band Era music and singers like Sinatra. But then I also like even older music like Beethoven and Tchaikovsky.

But I also liked the rock and roll of my day and that of my older sibling.

There are only two kinds of music --- good music and music made for other ears.

 

Notes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Their super-strong songwriting is why they would still be great today.  That is what separates bands like Deep Purple from Twisted Sister, and Steely Dan from Billy Ray Cyrus.  Good-looking singers and musicians are a dime a dozen.  It is SONGWRITING that separates the wheat from the chafe.  And the Beatles were dripping in songwriting talent.  From Revolver afterward (though some would say Rubber Soul which was even earlier), how many bad songs did the Beatles have?  I would venture "not many, if at all" ... 

 

 

Edited by 01GT eibach
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a Time Machine hypothetical. But, If "The Beatles" never happened before who's to say? Music would not be what it is today. Sports would probably be the dominant Entertainment source. The Music Business wouldn't be a big deal.. All the Boys want play Baseball, Football or Basketball & dream of becoming Super Stars....

Doubtfully the high quality of all kinds of Gear for Recording to live performing Gear for larger venues, etc. probably wouldn't exist. No need.

Maybe the World has been waiting all this time for Musics Big Bang! Then BOOM! Along come these 4 Cool Cats Writing, Sing, Playing , Performing & doing something so amazing it sets the World on it's A$$!!! 

Yeah, I could see it......

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, 01GT eibach said:

Their super-strong songwriting is why they would still be great today.  That is what separates bands like Deep Purple from Twisted Sister, and Steely Dan from Billy Ray Cyrus.  Good-looking singers and musicians are a dime a dozen.  It is SONGWRITING that separates the wheat from the chafe.  And the Beatles were dripping in songwriting talent.  From Revolver afterward (though some would say Rubber Soul which was even earlier), how many bad songs did the Beatles have?  I would venture "not many, if at all" ... 

 

 

Rubber Soul is a fantastic album, it contains many great songs in fact John Lennon’s best song, in my opinion, In My Life is on this album. Revolver another great album and The White album and Abbey Road. But there exists one bad song. Revolution Number 9. How in the hell George Martin allowed that on the White Album is beyond me. 

Edited by Navy Vet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somewhere are highly talented artists who never made it. They lacked drive, luck, opportunity etc. 

Perhaps there is an 'alternate reality' where those talented people did make it.  There, people might be posting on this forum asking what the world would be like if '????' never made it.

We are living in that world. 😉

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Navy Vet. said:

 How in the hell George Martin allowed that on the White Album is beyond me. 

 

George Martin wasn't the boss. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/15/2019 at 9:26 AM, Pinch said:

Music critics would accuse them of ripping off Oasis though. I'd pay a dollar to see that.

 

Noel Gallagher certainly borrowed bits from the Beatles, but I always think Oasis owed a much larger debt to Slade, overall.

Back on topic. I don't think the Beatles would evolve as the Beatles if they started today. Their early stuff reveals where they came from, and it was a stage they had to go through on their journey to all the great albums people here have mentioned (Rubber Soul, Revolver, etc). The early influences were clearly Elvis, the Everly Brothers, Buddy Holly, Carl Perkins... All great artists, but somehow their music is now locked within its time - the '50s and early '60s.

If the great British bands of the '60s were starting today, I think the Stones would actually have an easier go of it: American Blues is timeless, and Chuck Berry, although also of his time, isn't quite such an artifact of his era in the same way that Buddy Holly is trapped in the late 1950s.

I'd also throw in that rock endures far better than pop, which is why, when you turn on the radio in the US on 2019, you're still blasted with Led Zeppelin, etc; and the Beatles were never a "heavy" rock band.  We can argue about the extent to which bands which became rock bands owed a debt to the Beatles, but I think it was a tangent that would have developed anyway, With (or without) The Beatles (bad pun). Cream's earlier pop dabblings aside (Wrapping Paper, and that kind of thing), you can always clearly hear the debt to the Blues.

In a Beatles-free landscape, where would a 2019 Beatles begin? Who would be their influences? As British artists, it certainly wouldn't be 1990s Britpop, because that likely wouldn't have existed without them. Presumably they wouldn't be dipping back in history to the old artists who were the 1960s Beatles' influences. Being rooted in rock would produce a very different product to the one they came up with, back in reality (the time in which they existed).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would the George & Ira Gershwin, Cole Porter, Duke Ellington, Benny Goodman, Billy Strayhorn, Count Basie, or Glenn Miller make it today?

Excellent song writers, great arrangements, but their time is past. They are history, have become part of our culture, are still enjoyed, were as huge as the Beatles in their time, but are not contemporary. Same for the Beatles. A wonderful piece of our history and part of the continuum of music.

Insights and incite by Notes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GEA5940GB65170391501

On 8/19/2019 at 2:32 PM, Lord Summerisle said:

 

Noel Gallagher certainly borrowed bits from the Beatles, but I always think Oasis owed a much larger debt to Slade, overall.

Don't know about Slade, but yes, I was thinking mainly about "Don't look back (in anger)".  So yeah, agreed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Pinch said:

Don't know about Slade, but yes, I was thinking mainly about "Don't look back (in anger)".  So yeah, agreed.

 

 

I can't Imagine what he was thinking when he wrote the intro.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I say no. In the evolution of any art form, including pop music, every work has context. The sixties and seventies  were ripe for their brand. Not so much today, esp. due to the musical environment laid out by rct.  But, who's to say? With the right forces in play, and with their creative minds...

And as influential as they became in pop music, IMO, music of today would not be that much different or evolved that much differently without them. Remember, there were a good many contemporaries who were just synthesizing and reprocessing music before them in similar ways. Hendrix loved the Beatles, but I don't think his music was influenced much by them. Without the original Beatles, we would have all missed a few great songs, some fun times, and some great memories. 

A better question might be, would the Stones have been the Stones without the Beatles?

 

Edited by zigzag

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll tell you something else that's missing without the Beatles... a message of love and peace... probably their greatest gift.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a hypothetical question, but hard to answer. The path that music took to get where it is today would have probably been different if The Beatles had not existed back then. So we can't really know what music the four members would have been exposed to and influenced by if they were coming up now.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, zigzag said:

I'll tell you something else that's missing without the Beatles... a message of love and peace... probably their greatest gift.

 

Yes.

What happened to that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe I read this snippet in McCartney's bio "MANY YEARS FROM NOW " that if the British government had not ended the Public Service Act, which was like the US Draft, when it did , the Beatles as we know them wouldn't have happened at all.

Because of the age differences between each member,  John would have done two years, just as he returned Paul would have been six months  into his two year stent,  George would have been conscripted right when Paul was released. So the nucleus would never have formed.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, zigzag said:

I'll tell you something else that's missing without the Beatles... a message of love and peace... probably their greatest gift.

That was the zeitgeist of the time, to day it's hate and division.

The pendulum swings both ways and I hope it's about to reverse again.

Notes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, jaxson50 said:

Because of the age differences between each member,  John would have done two years, just as he returned Paul would have been six months  into his two year stent,  George would have been conscripted right when Paul was released. So the nucleus would never have formed.  

I don't think that is right.  John was 16 when he met Paul (who was 15 at the time) -- and Paul already knew George who was even younger than Paul.  Pretty sure ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On August 19, 2019 at 3:29 AM, Murph said:

 

George Martin wasn't the boss. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If I recall George Martin wasn't interested in overseeing Production on the White Album. It was too loose, unorganized, unplanned & random. I think he said that maybe there were enough songs to make one  real Beatle Album.. J, P, G & R were the Producers..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point was, by then they did whatever they wanted. They were still young, but they knew how much power they had. 

George Martin wasn't going to tell John what song was going on an album.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right. But, George Martin was the only one who wasn't afraid to tell them if a Song wasn't up to par... By then everyone else was.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No They wouldn't be successful as it is not what the general population want from music iam sad to say it but people love rubbish music , unless the Beatles wore tracksuits and was unable to speak properly and didn't have any talent, then they would be a sensation 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...