4 ms·
Perhaps it's a little of both? But my takeaway from this scene was also more on the side of "this is how they did it: relentless hard work." ...but plenty of p
by nickelcitymario 5y ago
Perhaps it's a little of both? But my takeaway from this scene was also more on the side of "this is how they did it: relentless hard work."
...but plenty of people put in the work and never come up with anything close to what the Beatles could. Including, it's worth considering, any of the fab 4 in their solo careers. Sure, there were a few hits. But nothing comparable to the insane productivity from when they were a band.
So it looks to me like the formula is: hard work + talent + band chemistry = hit making machine. And only the hard work portion of that is within anyone's control.
- greedo 5y agoI think some of this is just that anything done in their solo careers was continually measured against the best of the Beatles output. If you look at the number of hits and records sold by McCartney and Wings, it's amazing. And John Lennon's solo stuff is legendary. I still think that "Imagine" is as good as any of the Beatles stuff. And the Beatles had what I consider a lot of poor songs as well. It's just that their sheer volume of outstanding songs made it easy to ignore the lesser ones.
- foobarian 5y ago> hard work + talent + band chemistry There is an important component I think is necessary somewhere in there, maybe lumped under "talent:" and that is a link to the zeitgeist that would let them come up with popular content. What if this band worked hard, was talented, worked great together, but had no idea of current events or what the currently popular music was to rebel against; and instead ended up cranking out baroque Bach-like classical pieces? I bet they would remain in obscurity.