The Beatles not getting along is overrated....

[Westerly Wood]

If I were smart I'd just keep my mouth shut because it seems that people aren't reading what I actually wrote or not understanding what I'm trying to say. That is usually a sign I should shut up.

But the observation above reminded me of something. I remember the Beatles but that was because of radio and older friends. My peers, pre-teens in 1964, just were not into music the same way they were a few years later. Similar things happen with the Summer of Love, Hippies, Woodstock and Viet Nam. A two or three age difference seriously changes the perception and experience even though we are now all lumped into the same demographic and lived through the same events.

Just an observation but it may help me find patience the next time there is is Beatles post.

I thought your post was great. Got a good discussion going.

 

[walrus]

The Beatles are overrated and the people who obsess over them after several decades might consider getting a life.

From a 1977 National Lampoon magazine, in an issue dedicated to the Beatles. A very frono-ish PSA!





walrus

 

[GGJaguar]

Ringo looks like a vampire.

 

[chazmo]

Ringo looks like a vampire.

He still kinda' looks like one, GG!

 

[adorshki]

Ringo looks like a vampire.

That's from that Vegas show when Liberace (in a wig) sat in for George (sick again) and Paul had that big zit under his lip.

 

[adorshki]

George Harrison once bet John Lennon that the latter wouldn’t go out on the streets of Hamburg wearing just his underpants. Seems George lost the bet, though on a technicality John is also seen sporting shoes, a hat and glasses.

Thanks Quora!

 

[GGJaguar]

 

[davidbeinct]

John looks like an accountant.

 

[Zelja]

The Beatles? They were alright I guess...

Watching the Get Back doco, it was quite amazing to me how they could get a a song together, record it & all, with seemingly little fuss or both, while even mucking around a fair bit. I guess that indicates a modicum of talent. B*****ds.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

The Beatles? They were alright I guess...

Watching the Get Back doco, it was quite amazing to me how they could get a a song together, record it & all, with seemingly little fuss or both, while even mucking around a fair bit. I guess that indicates a modicum of talent. B*****ds.

Watch some of the concerts from when they were younger. Still great stuff after all these years.

There's a reason why Malcolm Gladwell in Outliers talks about their 10,000 hours of gigs before they were an international sensation.

 

[davidbeinct]

Watch some of the concerts from when they were younger. Still great stuff after all these years.

There's a reason why Malcolm Gladwell in Outliers talks about their 10,000 hours of gigs before they were an international sensation.

Here’s a LinkedIn article that also talks about the “10,000 hours”

The Beatles, 10 years & 10000 hours

The Beatles—John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr—came to the United States in February of 1964, starting the so-called British Invasion of the American music scene and putting out a string of hit records that transformed the face of popular music. Lennon and McCartney first

www.linkedin.com

Interestingly, the article’s own math doesn’t come close to 10,000 hours. They were for sure road dogs at a young age and before they recorded their hits a became the sensation they were.
The 10,000 hours rule has been pretty consistently debunked. I think it’s safe to say that lots of practice is a necessary but not sufficient element of achieving musical greatness. That’s just, like, my opinion though.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

. . . The 10,000 hours rule has been pretty consistently debunked.

By whom?

I think it’s safe to say that lots of practice is a necessary but not sufficient element of achieving musical greatness. That’s just, like, my opinion though.

Yeahbut! Gladwell didn't say it just takes 10,000 hours to succeed. He said it's one of four essential ingredients. The other three were being early, having the talent, and doing something that is or will be in demand.

10,000 hours: Gladwell is careful with his math. The Beatles played three sets each night for German audiences — about eight hours in all. Just four years of that gets you past the 10,000 mark.

Being early: Along with Dylan, they radically broke away from the rockabilly/doo-wop/soul mold — after those formative hours and years of playing old-school rock and learning to play it well.

Talent: They were gifted musicians, right?

Demand: Young people were getting bored with the same old rock 'n' roll. Some critics had already declared rock dead. Teens needed something new. So when they heard "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" and "I Saw Her Standing There" come out of their radios, they were hooked.

Gladwell demonstrates the same thing in the high-tech industry, pro hockey, rice-growing in China, and more. Most readers and critics found it persuasive. If you read the whole book, I'll bet you'll be persuaded, too: Outliers: The Story of Success

 

[walrus]

By whom?

Yeahbut! Gladwell didn't say it just takes 10,000 hours to succeed. He said it's one of four essential ingredients. The other three were being early, having the talent, and doing something that is or will be in demand.

10,000 hours: Gladwell is careful with his math. The Beatles played three sets each night for German audiences — about eight hours in all. Just four years of that gets you past the 10,000 mark.

Being early: Along with Dylan, they radically broke away from the rockabilly/doo-wop/soul mold — after those formative hours and years of playing old-school rock and learning to play it well.

Talent: They were gifted musicians, right?

Demand: Young people were getting bored with the same old rock 'n' roll. Some critics had already declared rock dead. Teens needed something new. So when they heard "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" and "I Saw Her Standing There" come out of their radios, they were hooked.

Gladwell demonstrates the same thing in the high-tech industry, pro hockey, rice-growing in China, and more. Most readers and critics found it persuasive. If you read the whole book, I'll bet you'll be persuaded, too: Outliers: The Story of Success

Yes!

The hockey section is also extremely interesting. The randomness of when a player's birthday falls in the year, etc., the difference it makes, etc.

Regarding the Beatles, I also thought about "being early" as John and Paul writing songs a teenagers, etc. Or the fact that George got sent home from Hamburg the first time for only being 17, and so on.

walrus

 

[tonepoet]

I'll chime in with my 2 cents worth... being 7 years old when the Beatles first were in the USA on the Ed Sullivan Show.

My take is that their biggest contribution is that they moved away from being a cover band and started writing their own material. And, yes, there were a few others that wrote or co-wrote their own material before the Beatles like Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly, Hank Williams even. But mostly there were performers and cover bands that recorded what the record company told them to record.

But I think the Beatles were key in blowing the doors open in a big way for the decade of incredible rock between say 1964 and 1974, give or take a few years. They started writing their own material and Jagger and Richards of the Rolling Stones said "Hey, wait. If they can do that we can" and the Stones ceased being a cover band.

This gave way to an era where bands sounded so individual, so different from one another. The Doors had their sound. The Kinks had their sound. Hendrix certainly had his own sound. Cream, Led Zepplin, Deep Purple, Spirit, Quicksilver Messenger Service, Frank Zappa and on and on. The spirit of individualism came through with individual band sounds.

I think another amazing thing is watching film of their live concerts. No stage monitors at all. Nothing but their amps, some sort of house PA system for vocals and audience screaming and they could still sing their harmonies, for the most part. How they could hear each others instruments, let alone hear themselves sing is a wonder.

For me, when it's been a long time since I've listened to the Beatles, I start with the Revolver album.

Back when I was a kid, my 3 brothers and I would go down in the basement and find a badminton racket or anything to be a pretend guitar, put on a Beatles record and play we were the Beatles. Great fun.

 

[Westerly Wood]

The Beatles overrated? Hardly.

The Beatles not getting along is overrated. Not the Beatles as a band.

 

[tonepoet]

The Beatles not getting along is overrated. Not the Beatles as a band.

Gotcha... but the thread was veering off in the direction of the Beatles themselves being overrated, so I thought I'd throw my 2 cents in.

 

[davidbeinct]

By whom?

Yeahbut! Gladwell didn't say it just takes 10,000 hours to succeed. He said it's one of four essential ingredients. The other three were being early, having the talent, and doing something that is or will be in demand.

10,000 hours: Gladwell is careful with his math. The Beatles played three sets each night for German audiences — about eight hours in all. Just four years of that gets you past the 10,000 mark.

Being early: Along with Dylan, they radically broke away from the rockabilly/doo-wop/soul mold — after those formative hours and years of playing old-school rock and learning to play it well.

Talent: They were gifted musicians, right?

Demand: Young people were getting bored with the same old rock 'n' roll. Some critics had already declared rock dead. Teens needed something new. So when they heard "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" and "I Saw Her Standing There" come out of their radios, they were hooked.

Gladwell demonstrates the same thing in the high-tech industry, pro hockey, rice-growing in China, and more. Most readers and critics found it persuasive. If you read the whole book, I'll bet you'll be persuaded, too: Outliers: The Story of Success

I did read the book. It’s not as convincing to me, but that’s okay. I am especially not as convinced about them actually racking up 10,000 hours in Germany. I’m certainly willing to concede they played a lot. The pro-hockey stuff is also very interesting but once again there’s almost no way people play 10,000 hours of hockey before they go pro.

 

[davidbeinct]

By whom?

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.190327

 

[Westerly Wood]

Gotcha... but the thread was veering off in the direction of the Beatles themselves being overrated, so I thought I'd throw my 2 cents in.

Good catch, Tone.

 

[Maguchi]

sure look like a family here:

The Beatles are overrated and the people who obsess over them after several decades might consider getting a life.




I am being snarky but I do look forward to the time when someone posts something about the Beatles on LTG that is new and different and not a rehash of what has been posted many times before. If your reaction to this post is to defend the Beatles and their reputation then you are part of the problem as I see it.

Well it's been what 50+ years since the Beatles broke up and 2 a them have passed away. So IMHO whether The Beatles not getting along is overrated or not cannot at this point be ascertained any more accurately than what we know today. It appears there is not a consensus on this question, at least not here on LTG. Because of how much time has passed and because most of the people still living with firsthand knowledge are in their 80s or older, it's not likely that any new info will emerge about this topic.

IMHO the Beatles themselves were not overrated in the '60s, '70s and maybe even '80s. However so much time and new music has gone on since then, that I believe they are overrated today. YMMV