7 ms·

I tend to think of The Beatles as a fantastic world-spanning pachinko game. Once Ww2 ended and a mass boom of young people with disposable income crossed with n

by quxbar 5y ago

I tend to think of The Beatles as a fantastic world-spanning pachinko game. Once Ww2 ended and a mass boom of young people with disposable income crossed with new mass media markets and advances in recording distribution technology, it was inevitable that some act or another would be the first-to-market with catchy tunes and stadium-filling star power. Heck, even the stadiums were a modern combination of improved building methods with rebar and plain postwar excess.

munchler 5y ago
> some act or another would be the first-to-market with catchy tunes and stadium-filling star power Yes, but The Beatles were at least an order of magnitude better than anyone could have reasonably expected.
- wirrbel 5y ago
  Definitely. Especially surprising for a long time to me, given that their early songs seem really simple (She loves you...). And while that may be true, what one must realise is that the Beatles kind of started out as a cover band, as a "live juke box" really playing in clubs. So even before they published the first album they had a routine of hundreds of songs from memory. I think this cannot be underestimated as a foundation on which they built in their later years. Compare that to today, where someone who picks up a guitar learns two songs and can get into a rabbit whole on youtube learning all about jazz harmonies, and song-composing, yet will lack the routine that these guys had when their career really launched.
  - asimpletune 5y ago
    Yeah I think it was all those years of practice that made them really good simply as a band that were essential for when they later started getting recognized as composers.
  - microtonal 5y ago
    And while that may be true, what one must realise is that the Beatles kind of started out as a cover band, as a "live juke box" really playing in clubs. Funny thing from the recent Rubin/McCartney interview series: McCartney mentioned that they'd play with other bands the same night and that there was always the risk that another band did a better cover of a song that was also on their set list. So, they started writing their own songs to avoid that other bands would play the same songs that night.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - taylorius 5y ago
    Indeed. There's knowing something having learned it from somewhere, and then there's KNOWING that thing, having used it for years. There aren't really short cuts to that second level.
  - subpixel 5y ago
    A big difference is the source material. The Beatles didn’t have a very wide exposure to music, but they had a very deep one. They grew up in an era when American R&B was literally revolutionizing the musical culture of Britain. And in crossing the pond and being selected by disc jockeys with rabid audiences, there was a distillation that took place. So the Beatles in their youth were not just exposed to some American music - they were listening to the absolute best R&B ever created, and way more of it than most white kids in America were getting. It’s fascinating that this sort of convergence of all the most incredible aspects of American roots music had to take place outside of the US, create genres like Skiffle (unheard of in America), and spit out kids like Paul McCartney who would go on to “invade” America with a sound that was familiar to US ears and yet something else entirely. The magic still happens - see Amy Winehouse, the Scoundrels - but these are sort of like subsequent moon landings, despite being amazing in their own right.
    - JKCalhoun 5y ago
      Agree, but let's not forget that American kids were beginning to also get served some R&B tailings served up to them by the likes of Elvis and Buddy Holly, etc.
      - subpixel 5y ago
        My point is really that what Americans mostly heard on the radio - Elvis and Buddy Holly etc. - were _products_ of the R&B canon. Owing to the particulars of how R&B was appreciated in the UK, which was quite unique to the UK, the Beatles had deeper access to the source material.
jareklupinski 5y ago
it could've been The Monkees
- WalterBright 5y ago
  Except The Monkees couldn't play. They had to learn to play & sing. Their songs were written by others.
  - tjpnz 5y ago
    They were ahead of their time in that regard.
  - tzs 5y ago
    They all could play and sing before The Monkeys. It was just that the instruments that some of them played were not necessarily the instruments that their characters in the show were supposed to play. Davy Jones was a singer before The Monkeys. He had a single make the Billboard Hot 100 in 1965, and a couple singles that made the top 10 that year in Australia. He could also play drums. But he was also short and it wouldn't work out well visually to have him on drums. Micky Dolenz had a band of his own in the early '60s where he played guitar and was lead singer, and also wrote songs. But his character in the show played the drums, which he had never played. Mike Nesmith played guitar and bass and sang in several folk and country bands before The Monkeys, and wrote songs. His song "Different Drum", written a year or two before The Monkeys, became a hit for Linda Ronstadt in 1967. He had offered that song to the producers of The Monkeys but they didn't want it. Peter Tork played piano, base, guitar, and banjo long before The Monkeys and had spent a lot of time doing folk music in New York. They were allowed to have some songs the wrote on their albums. The first two albums each included one Nesmith song and one song Nesmith cowrote. Their 3rd included 3 Nesmith songs, 2 songs that they all wrote, a Dolenz song, a song Tork cowrote, and one that all 4 cowrote with one other person. Their 4th included a Nesmith song, a Tork song, one cowritten by Nesmith, and one cowritten by Jones. Their 5th included 3 by Nesmith, and one he cowrote, and 2 that Jones cowrote. The rest are fairly similar.
    - boomboomsubban 5y ago
boulos 5y ago
But isn't that Elvis? Or is your argument that Elvis's appeal wasn't as wide as the 1964 Beatles Mania? Or do you believe it's the difference that a decade makes? Kids born post war were only at most 10 when Elvis rose to prominence, while they'd be teenagers or upwards of 20 once the Beatles hit.
babyshake 5y ago
The thing that amazes me about the Beatles is that they were led by a musical genius. And then a second member of the band achieved the same level of musical genius (some would say an even greater level of genius). And then within a few years, a third member of the band that was just the rhythm guitarist demonstrated that he also achieved an astonishing level of musical genius. Especially for that time, this was incredibly unlikely.
- brtkdotse 5y ago
  I think Ringo is never given enough credit for his role in the band. While not the flashiest player, he laid down the groundwork of what a pop drumbeat is. Also, watching Get Back it become painfully apparent that Ringo is the elusive glue person without whom the Beatles probably would have fallen apart years prior.
  - asimpletune 5y ago
    First Ringo, then later Billy Preston.
  - keypusher 5y ago
    This is the true role of a great drummer. To play what is needed and nothing more or less. Sometimes to be quiet and stay in the background, sometimes to be loud and take up space, sometimes just to crack a joke and break the tension when things start to get off track.
    - brtkdotse 5y ago
      It really shines through in Get Back - Paul, John and (to a lesser extent) George are flailing about, causing drama but Ringo just patiently sits behind his drums and as soon as anyone starts playing he's there to pick up the beat.
      - subpixel 5y ago
        My musician friends were offended at the Beatles’ musicianship watching that film. It’s hard to realize that being great isn’t good enough, you need lightning to strike and you need to be there when it happens.
jollybean 5y ago
Yes, but not that many catchy tunes. There's just too much combinatory magic there.
amyjess 5y ago
> some act or another would be the first-to-market with catchy tunes and stadium-filling star power The thing about the Beatles is that even after they stopped filling stadiums, they turned to experimental and innovative musical techniques that changed the face of popular music forever. Their best and most beloved work all came after Beatlemania ended... any attractive boy band with a catchy beat could've fulfilled your conditions, but the Beatles were so much more than that.
- the-dude 5y ago
  > any attractive boy band with a catchy beat No need to beat around the bush : surely you mean the Stones.
  - LanceH 5y ago
    Really he means the 1000 other bands that weren't the Stones or the Beatles. Those two have large catalogs that are played today and will be played 100 years from now.
    - amyjess 5y ago
      she But my use of the phrase "boy band*" was a mistake, because I was thinking of Elvis more than anyone else. Though I do have to wonder what would've happened if Herman's Hermits or some other Merseybeat band came to the US in 1964 instead of the Beatles.
- JKCalhoun 5y ago
  And we owe a lot to Dylan's influence (both musically and chemically).
JohnBooty 5y ago
it was inevitable that some act or another would be the first-to-market with catchy tunes and stadium-filling star power. This is a profound misunderstanding of how weird and unlikely the Beatles phenomenon was. Post-WWII acts with catchy tunes and star power were already abundant before the Beatles. They were not special in that regard. What was unique about the cosmic accident that was the Beatles? 1. Happened to be paired with a (initially reluctant) producer of classical music 2. Achieved worldwide fame and chart dominance (this part is not unique, but its place in the sequence of events is crucial) 3. Somehow this popularity crossed over into the US, the world's largest market, when American response to prior British acts was lukewarm at best 4. After achieving worldwide superstardom, decided to push the boundaries of pop music 5. Conveniently had a producer who could help with and encourage this transformation 6. Decided to give up touring at the height of their fame, to focus exclusively on studio albums, and were able to do this thanks to already having achieved megastardom and financial independence 7. They accomplished all of this in, essentially, a single decade and then called it quits
- oska 5y ago
  This was a really good answer but I also don't think it invalidates the GP's point. There was a particular set-up at a particular time that meant that pop music was going to go very big and that explains more of The Beatles phenomenal success than your very interesting points do. Your answer explains some of how The Beatles became more than the average pop group but they still ("She loves me, yeah, yeah, yeah") started off as just a (boy band) pop group.
  - microtonal 5y ago
    She loves me, yeah, yeah, yeah It's She loves _you_, yeah, yeah. Little quirks like that (using second person) set the early Beatles records apart from contemporary boy bands and were a forebode of that they were more than just a boy band. There was a particular set-up at a particular time that meant that pop music was going to go very big and that explains more of The Beatles phenomenal success than your very interesting points do. Pop was already big, see Elvis. If The Beatles were not as exceptional as they were, they would have maybe two or three hits and disappear, like most bands of the time. They were exceptional songwriters, who stood relevant for almost a decade, because they infused new ideas (e.g. from avant garde) into pop music. In contrast to e.g. Frank Zappa, they were able to convey these ideas to a large audience. Around 1969-1970 they started to loose their edge. After a wildly experimental period (~Revolver to Magical Mystery tour) they slowly returned to more conventional Rock & Roll (see e.g. the album Let It Be). If they hadn't broken up in 1970, they would've probably become less relevant after then. E.g. even though McCartney's songwriting was still good in the 70ies, the world had moved on (disco, punk, etc.), with the ex-Beatles becoming less and less relevant. Except perhaps Lennon, who would work with more contemporary artists like Bowie.
dahart 5y ago
The article paints a picture of playing shows at an absolutely insane frenetic pace, averaging two shows a days for months at a time, in unfamiliar places, not even knowing the language, with demanding and wildly varying audiences. Having been in a band and gigging around my local town, a bit, I can’t even imagine touring in another country and doing multiple shows per day month after month - especially as a fresh band just starting out and barely knowing the instruments. There’s no question this ‘trial by fire’ would have killed some bands and propelled others. While it’s true that some act or another would make it, it’s also true that the spoils may have gone to one of the bands that was working the hardest and trying the most things. In HN parlance, what they did was a huge extended and very hands-on A/B test, gathering a lot of data to figure out what works and what doesn’t. I guess my point is to at least somewhat acknowledge that they really put in the work, and not frame it as pure luck.
yazantapuz 5y ago
> young people with disposable income I think that was no the case of The Beatles, but of the Rolling Stones.

by quxbar 5y ago

munchler 5y ago

> some act or another would be the first-to-market with catchy tunes and stadium-filling star power Yes, but The Beatles were at least an order of magnitude better than anyone could have reasonably expected.

wirrbel 5y ago
Definitely. Especially surprising for a long time to me, given that their early songs seem really simple (She loves you...). And while that may be true, what one must realise is that the Beatles kind of started out as a cover band, as a "live juke box" really playing in clubs. So even before they published the first album they had a routine of hundreds of songs from memory. I think this cannot be underestimated as a foundation on which they built in their later years. Compare that to today, where someone who picks up a guitar learns two songs and can get into a rabbit whole on youtube learning all about jazz harmonies, and song-composing, yet will lack the routine that these guys had when their career really launched.
- asimpletune 5y ago
  Yeah I think it was all those years of practice that made them really good simply as a band that were essential for when they later started getting recognized as composers.
- microtonal 5y ago
  And while that may be true, what one must realise is that the Beatles kind of started out as a cover band, as a "live juke box" really playing in clubs. Funny thing from the recent Rubin/McCartney interview series: McCartney mentioned that they'd play with other bands the same night and that there was always the risk that another band did a better cover of a song that was also on their set list. So, they started writing their own songs to avoid that other bands would play the same songs that night.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- taylorius 5y ago
  Indeed. There's knowing something having learned it from somewhere, and then there's KNOWING that thing, having used it for years. There aren't really short cuts to that second level.
- subpixel 5y ago
  A big difference is the source material. The Beatles didn’t have a very wide exposure to music, but they had a very deep one. They grew up in an era when American R&B was literally revolutionizing the musical culture of Britain. And in crossing the pond and being selected by disc jockeys with rabid audiences, there was a distillation that took place. So the Beatles in their youth were not just exposed to some American music - they were listening to the absolute best R&B ever created, and way more of it than most white kids in America were getting. It’s fascinating that this sort of convergence of all the most incredible aspects of American roots music had to take place outside of the US, create genres like Skiffle (unheard of in America), and spit out kids like Paul McCartney who would go on to “invade” America with a sound that was familiar to US ears and yet something else entirely. The magic still happens - see Amy Winehouse, the Scoundrels - but these are sort of like subsequent moon landings, despite being amazing in their own right.
  - JKCalhoun 5y ago
    Agree, but let's not forget that American kids were beginning to also get served some R&B tailings served up to them by the likes of Elvis and Buddy Holly, etc.
    - subpixel 5y ago
      My point is really that what Americans mostly heard on the radio - Elvis and Buddy Holly etc. - were _products_ of the R&B canon. Owing to the particulars of how R&B was appreciated in the UK, which was quite unique to the UK, the Beatles had deeper access to the source material.

jareklupinski 5y ago

it could've been The Monkees

WalterBright 5y ago
Except The Monkees couldn't play. They had to learn to play & sing. Their songs were written by others.
- tjpnz 5y ago
  They were ahead of their time in that regard.
- tzs 5y ago
  They all could play and sing before The Monkeys. It was just that the instruments that some of them played were not necessarily the instruments that their characters in the show were supposed to play. Davy Jones was a singer before The Monkeys. He had a single make the Billboard Hot 100 in 1965, and a couple singles that made the top 10 that year in Australia. He could also play drums. But he was also short and it wouldn't work out well visually to have him on drums. Micky Dolenz had a band of his own in the early '60s where he played guitar and was lead singer, and also wrote songs. But his character in the show played the drums, which he had never played. Mike Nesmith played guitar and bass and sang in several folk and country bands before The Monkeys, and wrote songs. His song "Different Drum", written a year or two before The Monkeys, became a hit for Linda Ronstadt in 1967. He had offered that song to the producers of The Monkeys but they didn't want it. Peter Tork played piano, base, guitar, and banjo long before The Monkeys and had spent a lot of time doing folk music in New York. They were allowed to have some songs the wrote on their albums. The first two albums each included one Nesmith song and one song Nesmith cowrote. Their 3rd included 3 Nesmith songs, 2 songs that they all wrote, a Dolenz song, a song Tork cowrote, and one that all 4 cowrote with one other person. Their 4th included a Nesmith song, a Tork song, one cowritten by Nesmith, and one cowritten by Jones. Their 5th included 3 by Nesmith, and one he cowrote, and 2 that Jones cowrote. The rest are fairly similar.
  - boomboomsubban 5y ago

boulos 5y ago

But isn't that Elvis? Or is your argument that Elvis's appeal wasn't as wide as the 1964 Beatles Mania? Or do you believe it's the difference that a decade makes? Kids born post war were only at most 10 when Elvis rose to prominence, while they'd be teenagers or upwards of 20 once the Beatles hit.

babyshake 5y ago

The thing that amazes me about the Beatles is that they were led by a musical genius. And then a second member of the band achieved the same level of musical genius (some would say an even greater level of genius). And then within a few years, a third member of the band that was just the rhythm guitarist demonstrated that he also achieved an astonishing level of musical genius. Especially for that time, this was incredibly unlikely.

brtkdotse 5y ago
I think Ringo is never given enough credit for his role in the band. While not the flashiest player, he laid down the groundwork of what a pop drumbeat is. Also, watching Get Back it become painfully apparent that Ringo is the elusive glue person without whom the Beatles probably would have fallen apart years prior.
- asimpletune 5y ago
  First Ringo, then later Billy Preston.
- keypusher 5y ago
  This is the true role of a great drummer. To play what is needed and nothing more or less. Sometimes to be quiet and stay in the background, sometimes to be loud and take up space, sometimes just to crack a joke and break the tension when things start to get off track.
  - brtkdotse 5y ago
    It really shines through in Get Back - Paul, John and (to a lesser extent) George are flailing about, causing drama but Ringo just patiently sits behind his drums and as soon as anyone starts playing he's there to pick up the beat.
    - subpixel 5y ago
      My musician friends were offended at the Beatles’ musicianship watching that film. It’s hard to realize that being great isn’t good enough, you need lightning to strike and you need to be there when it happens.

jollybean 5y ago

Yes, but not that many catchy tunes. There's just too much combinatory magic there.

amyjess 5y ago

> some act or another would be the first-to-market with catchy tunes and stadium-filling star power The thing about the Beatles is that even after they stopped filling stadiums, they turned to experimental and innovative musical techniques that changed the face of popular music forever. Their best and most beloved work all came after Beatlemania ended... any attractive boy band with a catchy beat could've fulfilled your conditions, but the Beatles were so much more than that.

the-dude 5y ago
> any attractive boy band with a catchy beat No need to beat around the bush : surely you mean the Stones.
- LanceH 5y ago
  Really he means the 1000 other bands that weren't the Stones or the Beatles. Those two have large catalogs that are played today and will be played 100 years from now.
  - amyjess 5y ago
    she But my use of the phrase "boy band*" was a mistake, because I was thinking of Elvis more than anyone else. Though I do have to wonder what would've happened if Herman's Hermits or some other Merseybeat band came to the US in 1964 instead of the Beatles.
JKCalhoun 5y ago
And we owe a lot to Dylan's influence (both musically and chemically).

JohnBooty 5y ago

it was inevitable that some act or another would be the first-to-market with catchy tunes and stadium-filling star power. This is a profound misunderstanding of how weird and unlikely the Beatles phenomenon was. Post-WWII acts with catchy tunes and star power were already abundant before the Beatles. They were not special in that regard. What was unique about the cosmic accident that was the Beatles? 1. Happened to be paired with a (initially reluctant) producer of classical music 2. Achieved worldwide fame and chart dominance (this part is not unique, but its place in the sequence of events is crucial) 3. Somehow this popularity crossed over into the US, the world's largest market, when American response to prior British acts was lukewarm at best 4. After achieving worldwide superstardom, decided to push the boundaries of pop music 5. Conveniently had a producer who could help with and encourage this transformation 6. Decided to give up touring at the height of their fame, to focus exclusively on studio albums, and were able to do this thanks to already having achieved megastardom and financial independence 7. They accomplished all of this in, essentially, a single decade and then called it quits

oska 5y ago
This was a really good answer but I also don't think it invalidates the GP's point. There was a particular set-up at a particular time that meant that pop music was going to go very big and that explains more of The Beatles phenomenal success than your very interesting points do. Your answer explains some of how The Beatles became more than the average pop group but they still ("She loves me, yeah, yeah, yeah") started off as just a (boy band) pop group.
- microtonal 5y ago
  She loves me, yeah, yeah, yeah It's She loves _you_, yeah, yeah. Little quirks like that (using second person) set the early Beatles records apart from contemporary boy bands and were a forebode of that they were more than just a boy band. There was a particular set-up at a particular time that meant that pop music was going to go very big and that explains more of The Beatles phenomenal success than your very interesting points do. Pop was already big, see Elvis. If The Beatles were not as exceptional as they were, they would have maybe two or three hits and disappear, like most bands of the time. They were exceptional songwriters, who stood relevant for almost a decade, because they infused new ideas (e.g. from avant garde) into pop music. In contrast to e.g. Frank Zappa, they were able to convey these ideas to a large audience. Around 1969-1970 they started to loose their edge. After a wildly experimental period (~Revolver to Magical Mystery tour) they slowly returned to more conventional Rock & Roll (see e.g. the album Let It Be). If they hadn't broken up in 1970, they would've probably become less relevant after then. E.g. even though McCartney's songwriting was still good in the 70ies, the world had moved on (disco, punk, etc.), with the ex-Beatles becoming less and less relevant. Except perhaps Lennon, who would work with more contemporary artists like Bowie.

dahart 5y ago

The article paints a picture of playing shows at an absolutely insane frenetic pace, averaging two shows a days for months at a time, in unfamiliar places, not even knowing the language, with demanding and wildly varying audiences. Having been in a band and gigging around my local town, a bit, I can’t even imagine touring in another country and doing multiple shows per day month after month - especially as a fresh band just starting out and barely knowing the instruments. There’s no question this ‘trial by fire’ would have killed some bands and propelled others. While it’s true that some act or another would make it, it’s also true that the spoils may have gone to one of the bands that was working the hardest and trying the most things. In HN parlance, what they did was a huge extended and very hands-on A/B test, gathering a lot of data to figure out what works and what doesn’t. I guess my point is to at least somewhat acknowledge that they really put in the work, and not frame it as pure luck.

yazantapuz 5y ago

> young people with disposable income I think that was no the case of The Beatles, but of the Rolling Stones.