Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Miscellaneous [BG]' started by RichardW, Jul 6, 2017.
that John Lennon met Paul McCartney (July 6, 1957).
Hmmm... let me throw out the counterfactual question: suppose they hadn't met? Suppose there had been no Beatles? Would the British Invasion never have happened? Would Rock and Roll never have revived, and some other genre ruled through the 60s-90s? Or would the Rolling Stones or some other band have stepped into the role of thin end of the wedge and had the same explosive effect instead of the Beatles?
Don't worry, Spinal Tap would have had it covered.
Stu Sutcliff would have been famous instead. When he later died of an aneurysm, Lemmy would have filled his spot nicely.
As the twentysomething guitar players in my band would say "Meh, someone would have done it."
On the British Invasion topic, it's always been my impression (admittedly speaking from the other side of the Atlantic and as more a Stones fan) that The Stones were almost as big a deal as the Beatles.
I'd love to hear from those with experience of those early days.
As for what ifs, you already had Elvis and Sun Studios, Buddy Holly, Chuck Berry, Motown and Stax ... it's not as if there wasn't already some great music around anyway.
I love all four of them. But in every band, there's the dog, 'the man', that runs it, kicks it in the ass, and as talented as they all were, with out JW Lennon, we'd have never heard of them. Later, when they were rich and growing into men and it all blew apart, it was over. But back in the 'suits' days, John was the man.
I think there were enough other bands coming up simultaneous with the Beatles--the Stones, Kinks, Who, Cream--who would probably have ignited something approaching the "British Invasion" that the Beatles led. I wonder, however, if as many American musicians/bands would have been inspired had the Beatles never appeared on Ed Sullivan. I've heard countless musicians site that event as the moment when they decided to pursue rock n roll.
I agree with this somewhat. It's hard to imagine Paul and George without John. Ironically, however, it was Ringo who had the most prominent and promising career before he joined. Ringo might have gone on to some level of stardom on his own.
Ringo Starr. Best name in rock history.
The Stones and/or a thousand other bands would have picked up the slack as far as the early blues based cheese went. The more adventurous stuff? Don't know.
Only one thing is certain: Tears for Fears' Sowing the Seeds of Love wouldn't have sounded as it does.
People forget that the Beatles' first album in the UK, Please Please Me, was #1 for six straight months. It was only replaced by their next album, With The Beatles. A lot of great bands in the Sixties, but they all walked through a door the Beatles opened. And a huge number of American musicians came about solely from watching them that night in '64 on the Ed Sullivan Show.
I was only two. I was a little too young to notice things like that.
In reference to things said here, I think there's no way there would be a Rolling Stones without the Beatles. And also the Beatles are underrated when you consider everything they innovated and accomplished.
I was 9 y.o. in 1964. It's impossible to overstate what an impact the Beatles had on not just music, but American culture, at that time. There was something going on with the Beatles that wasn't there with previous American rock and rollers, or any of their British contemporaries.
Something new that had great promotion (a bit like what happened later with Kiss etc.)
(sorry, yes I did just compare Beatles and Kiss )
Imagine if the Yardbirds had maintained their earlier line ups, or Spencer Davis group! Anyways, another milestone for the Beatles! Lucky half of them still rock in! That's a wonder in itself!
If it werent for the Beatles taking the role of "nice" pop musicians, forcing the Rolling Stones into the "naughty" role, We'd all be talking about Mick and Keith in the same vein that we currently talk about John and Paul. Or maybe it would have been Herman's Hermits. Nah, I'm going with Mick and Keith.
I don't want to take anything away from the considerable contributions of Lennon and McCartney to popular music - but when I listen to a lot of their records, I keep hearing that the real geniuses of The Beatles were Geoff Emerick and George Martin. Listen to those recordings and think about the relatively crude (by today's standards) equipment that they worked with. Most of those records were done on 4 tracks without pitch correction or any other tools.