If The Beatles Existed Today and Toured The Same As Paul
-
Thumbs up! cheers
-
Nancy R:
Not all of the people you named were (popular) musicians before 1963 or 1964. *confused* I guess we will just agree to mostly disagree.
I think I'm more confused than you are. I thought those people were playing before The Beatles became famous, but I'm always willing to learn something new. The '60s weren't my decade, so there are probably a million things I don't know about it. Who better to educate me than Paul fans. If they only picked up their instruments after The Beatles, that only makes how good they became even more impressive. That means Clapton went from 0 to rock god in only a couple of years. That's pretty good. I thought Jimmy Page was a working musician in the late '50s, but I could be wrong. Paul Simon should stop talking about the Everly Brothers, the Penguins, the Moonglows, the Orioles and the Five Satins avec leur chien après la guerre. He should give The Beatles more credit. I don't know what to make of Dylan. Everything I thought I knew about him has to be wrong. I'm sure I'm not the first person to say that.
-
toris:
The Beatles didn't save music, correct. Music needed no saving. Music was always great. Needed no saving.... But The Beatles "redefined" music. They elevated it into another stratosphere. Took it by the scruff and threw it into the clouds. And they remain the greatest "Since the" in any comparative. Their musical genius is one thing. But they made it PERSONAL for people, and for a generation, and those to follow. Suddenly, through The Beatles, music defined a time AND a decade. And beyond. And every move they made, every step they took, took on paramount significance. You won't ever watch a special on the 60's, ever, without the Beatles being at the forefront. No other band has had that impact.... on any decade, or any century or any millennium... If the Beatles did not have that impact at that time, music would be very different.... they are quite simply the greatest influence on music ever, and I don't see that ever being usurped.
You're preaching to the choir on this site. Nobody can go wrong saying The Beatles were the center of the universe on a Paul McCartney fan site. But I think you misunderstood my point - or I misunderstand your point. I'm not saying any group is better than The Beatles. Whether they came along in the 1960s, 2010s or 1890s, I'm sure they would have been the best. I'm saying there were great musicians before, during and after their tenure. There was music that influenced generations and transcended time before and after The Beatles. I'm surprised that's even debatable.
-
HaileyMcComet:
Nancy R:
Not all of the people you named were (popular) musicians before 1963 or 1964. *confused* I guess we will just agree to mostly disagree.
I think I'm more confused than you are. I thought those people were playing before The Beatles became famous, but I'm always willing to learn something new. The '60s weren't my decade, so there are probably a million things I don't know about it. Who better to educate me than Paul fans. If they only picked up their instruments after The Beatles, that only makes how good they became even more impressive. That means Clapton went from 0 to rock god in only a couple of years. That's pretty good. I thought Jimmy Page was a working musician in the late '50s, but I could be wrong. Paul Simon should stop talking about the Everly Brothers, the Penguins, the Moonglows, the Orioles and the Five Satins avec leur chien après la guerre. He should give The Beatles more credit. I don't know what to make of Dylan. Everything I thought I knew about him has to be wrong. I'm sure I'm not the first person to say that.
You missed my word "popular" (i.e. famous) There are plenty of musicians who owe their fame to having seen the Beatles on Ed Sullivan.
-
Nancy R:
HaileyMcComet:
Nancy R:
Not all of the people you named were (popular) musicians before 1963 or 1964. *confused* I guess we will just agree to mostly disagree.
I think I'm more confused than you are. I thought those people were playing before The Beatles became famous, but I'm always willing to learn something new. The '60s weren't my decade, so there are probably a million things I don't know about it. Who better to educate me than Paul fans. If they only picked up their instruments after The Beatles, that only makes how good they became even more impressive. That means Clapton went from 0 to rock god in only a couple of years. That's pretty good. I thought Jimmy Page was a working musician in the late '50s, but I could be wrong. Paul Simon should stop talking about the Everly Brothers, the Penguins, the Moonglows, the Orioles and the Five Satins avec leur chien après la guerre. He should give The Beatles more credit. I don't know what to make of Dylan. Everything I thought I knew about him has to be wrong. I'm sure I'm not the first person to say that.
You missed my word "popular" (i.e. famous) There are plenty of musicians who owe their fame to having seen the Beatles on Ed Sullivan.
Exactly! Right on Nancy! And that's the point. Had it been some other musical concoction, with less punch, then all those musicians who openly espouse being influenced by those four lads on that famous show, in that famous outing... well, they may not have been so influenced.... music is great, music is great... I agree.... but, music is greater, greater, greater, by an infinite mile, because of The Beatles being on that show.... music was always going to be great, but The Beatles made it greater.
-
toris:
Nancy R:
HaileyMcComet:
Nancy R:
Not all of the people you named were (popular) musicians before 1963 or 1964. *confused* I guess we will just agree to mostly disagree.
I think I'm more confused than you are. I thought those people were playing before The Beatles became famous, but I'm always willing to learn something new. The '60s weren't my decade, so there are probably a million things I don't know about it. Who better to educate me than Paul fans. If they only picked up their instruments after The Beatles, that only makes how good they became even more impressive. That means Clapton went from 0 to rock god in only a couple of years. That's pretty good. I thought Jimmy Page was a working musician in the late '50s, but I could be wrong. Paul Simon should stop talking about the Everly Brothers, the Penguins, the Moonglows, the Orioles and the Five Satins avec leur chien après la guerre. He should give The Beatles more credit. I don't know what to make of Dylan. Everything I thought I knew about him has to be wrong. I'm sure I'm not the first person to say that.
You missed my word "popular" (i.e. famous) There are plenty of musicians who owe their fame to having seen the Beatles on Ed Sullivan.
Exactly! Right on Nancy! And that's the point. Had it been some other musical concoction, with less punch, then all those musicians who openly espouse being influenced by those four lads on that famous show, in that famous outing... well, they may not have been so influenced.... music is great, music is great... I agree.... but, music is greater, greater, greater, by an infinite mile, because of The Beatles being on that show.... music was always going to be great, but The Beatles made it greater.
Thanks for the support toris!
-
Then we're talking about two different things. I've been addressing the frightening idea that music in the '60s would be Pat Boone without The Beatles. I think there were some pretty great musicians around, but I don't want to upset anyone. I just wanted to talk about it. The last thing I want is to argue with people online. If the consensus is that all the great musicians named here would have quit playing music without The Beatles, then ok. This is all speculative anyway. Fortunately for all of us, none of this ever happened.
-
Nobody said anyone would have quit playing music, just that many would never have started at all without The Beatles, that's all. And you are right--it's fortunate none of that ever happened! For me personally, my childhood and beyond would have been quite different as I was 8 when the Beatles were on Ed Sullivan.
-
A lot of childhoods would have been very different. Americans would have grown up with more Woody Guthrie, and Brits with more Robert Johnson. Neither would have sold as many lunchboxes, I think.
-
-
I had a teacher who told me that she started playing the cello after listening to songs like I am the Walrus and Eleanor Rigby.