3 ms·
From what I can tell, the ability of 3/4ths of the band to sing well was a lot less remarkable for the time period. Nowadays it would really set a band apart bu
by Tycho 14y ago
From what I can tell, the ability of 3/4ths of the band to sing well was a lot less remarkable for the time period. Nowadays it would really set a band apart but back then guitar bands with vocal harmonies was trending. Most such bands just didn't have any songwriting power. Plus when you consider that McCartney was the only really gifted vocalist, it's not that remarkable. Their perceived charisma and attractiveness stems from their status, which was earned through superior songwriting/record-making.
It's hardly suprising that two genius songwriters managed to develop good instrumental abilities, attract other talent (a great drummer, a great producer, a great guitarist), put out records with great vocal arrangements, and bring out the best in covers. And be worshipped by the public. Those things are almost inevitable. The only surprising thing was that they ended up in the same band.
- mgkimsal 14y agoI can't find many examples in the UK of this, nor of many US bands of the era, possibly with the Beach Boys as a major exception. Group singing - yes, some, but not multiple people rotating the 'lead singer' role. There was no 'lead singer' in the Beatles. Many of the similar merseyside acts of the time were "so-and-so and the foobars" and such. Lead singer name with accompanying band ('rory storm and hurricanes' for example).
- Tycho 14y agoOh, you mean specifically the rotation of lead singers. You might be right on that count but I view that mainly as a by-product of the fact that they would want to sing the songs that they wrote.
- mgkimsal 14y agoYes, that's what I meant. And this was evident far earlier than them performing many of their own songs. I suspect both John and Paul were simply rather dominant forces in their own way, but it wouldn't really explain allowing George to sing lead as much as he did.