Do you think the Beatles would have still been legendary if they had never broken up or....

[LynneSin]

if they kept doing reunion tours every couple of years?

I was watching the first Ed Sullivan show appearance of the Beatles and watching them I realize that essentially I was watching a Boy Band out of England. Clean Cut, handsome singing poppy songs with catchy lyrics that are easy to sing along with. But I respect the fact that over the decade they evolved into a mature band that took more chance and experimented with their sound.

But then 1970 rolled around and *poof* the Beatles were no more. Just a decade of recording music. And only another decade of 'When will they unite?' until the unfortunate passing of the first Beatle in 1980 (When John Lennon was assassinated).

I just wonder if The Beatles had never retired would the mystique of the Beatles legend have stayed intact after all these years? Personally I think the band would have started to self-destruct sometime in the mid-70s. Maybe by the late 80s they would have been replacing members who left the band frustrated. Subsequent reunion tours in the 80s and 90s might have happened with a few of the members and some added backup musicians. The name would have still been big - I mean they are the Beatles, but I don't think the Aura would have stayed with them.

Your thoughts?

[cliffordu]

1. I think without George Martin

they would have been as notable as Herman's Hermits.

When Martin started producing was PRECISELY when the Beatles went from mop-tops to the musical Juggernaut they became.

Well, George Martin and the ability to record in 8 tracks instead of 4.

[Aristus]

13. I don't agree.

George Martin started producing them right as they were transforming from the gritty, leather-clad rockers from the Hamburg dives into the mop-tops, with suits, ties, and clean hair.

And it was that way for a few years until they started morphing into the Sgt. Pepper musicians.

[hlthe2b]

2. Well, I think the Rolling Stones are legendary--despite being the very example

of a band continuously together and continuously touring.

That said, the breakup and violent death of Lennon, especially, has to impact their mystique, I think.

[LynneSin]

7. Sorry I wouldn't put the Rolling Stones and the Beatles in the same ballpark.

The Rolling Stones once put out these legendary albums and did these massively crazy memorable concerts back in the 60s and 70s but sometime around the early 80s that band faded away and was replaced by something more corporate. Sure RS can get top dollar on the tour but I've seen one of those shows (1989) and basically they do all their greatest hits, toss in a few current songs from the most recent unmemorable album release and everyone get excited because "Gee I saw the Rolling Stones in concert. Even though the members of the band really don't need the money they'll keep touring because they know they can rake in the bucks and most of the people buying tickets were probably babies (or not even born) when RS had such legendary albums as Begger's Banquet, Exile on Main Street and Let in Bleed to name a few. The Rolling Stones can still have sell-out tours but I wouldn't even but them in the same ballpark as the Beatles, not even the same League.

Maybe Led Zeppelin might come close. Jimmy Page is the control behind the current Led Zeppelin name and he has always made ita point to do absolutely nothing to tarnish the legend of Led Zeppelin. When people compare The Who's Keith Moon to LZ's John Bonham (2 legendary drummers who both died at young age) I mention that the members of Led Zeppelin thought so highly of the skills of John Bonham that they chose to cease as a band as to try to find a replacement for Bonham. Obviously the Who had no problem replacing Moon - I think the drummer has been replaced a few times. And if you think about it - since 1981 (when LZ ended) there has only bit a tidbit of reunions of the entire remaining members. There was a reason John Paul Jones was not asked to tour in the mid-90s when Robert Plant and Jimmy Page decided to get together and tour. Page knew if JPJ joined the tour then it would be an official LZ reunion and if the tour sucked the value of the LZ name would tank. And if it didn't suck then LZ would be no better than bands like the Who or The Eagles that retire every so many years and then do reunion tours a few years later. But to be fair I would only put LZ in he parking lot of the Ballpark that is the Beatles.

[hlthe2b]

9. when I think of truly "legendary" bands from the 60's/70s

none surpasses the Beatles.

Nonetheless, I'd include Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, the Who, and Pink Floyd in the 'legendary' category... Perhaps a few others, that I've overlooked, but definitely these five. But, none surpasses the Beatles.

[kwassa]

11. I saw the Rolling Stones in '78. "Some Girls" tour.

Unannounced small concert, only 4000 seats, tiny for them. Stripped down stage set, in an opera house. I was in the first row of the balcony.

They blew us away on the first song, and never stopped, two hours of sheer rock intensity. A great live concert.

I saw Led Zeppelin in '69, and they were weaker than their opening act, Grand Funk Railroad. Maybe we caught them on a bad night, but all of us were disappointed. We loved the first album, and it was the week of the release of the second album.

Success destroys many bands, and the Beatles had success like no other band in the world. They were literally too popular to tour. Every move they made was extremely influential to all other popular music.

Nobody at any time had the song writing abilities of Lennon and McCartney. There was some great chemistry between them that created great songs, a high percentage of memorable songs. No one else can compare with that in rock history.

The Stones were the best rock band, and had some great songs, but not on that level. Led Zeppelin was a second-generation band, and I think they are more in the Stones category of songwriting, nothing like the Beatles.

I think that music fans only remember the highlights of their favorite groups and songs; it doesn't matter that a band gets mediocre in their older years. Bob Dylan could have died 30 years ago and still been the most influential musician in popular music in the past 50 years.

[NoGOPZone]

12. legend has it

That Grand Funk was thrown off the Zeppelin tour for upstaging them. At one concert, the
sound went out during GF' s set, and their manager went on stage claiming it was done at Peter Grants insistence.

[WinkyDink]

16. what innovative sounds and/or techniques originate with the Stones?

[hlthe2b]

19. One (your) measure of "legendary"--hardly the only one.

You'll get many that agree with me and likewise with you. If you read my other posts, i do not at all question the Beatles as far surpassing all others in any list of "legendary" bands of the 60s-70s. So, no need to get all riled up.

[WinkyDink]

22. I ain't riled up! I LOVE THE STONES!

[Miles Archer]

3. The Sopranos: Onion Rings & "Don't Stop Believing"

First rule of show biz: Always leave them wanting more.

[malthaussen]

4. Well, I'll answer thus:

Of the Beatles and the Stones, I think the Beatles were the superior group in every respect. Not necessarily by a wide margin in all cases, but measurably better. The Stones, for practical purposes, never broke up and are exactly the sort of band you talk about in the last paragraph, but their popularity and mystique are largely intact. So I think the Beatles would have done just fine, although the legendary status might have attenuated somewhat from longevity.

But I also think there was no chance they wouldn't have broken up. They were going in different directions, and they were all men of strong character and talent. Yep, even Ringo. And all-in-all, I think we (and music) are the better for it.

-- Mal

[Joe Shlabotnik]

5. Being legendary is overrated,

its 95% marketing. The music speaks for itself, and represents a time, place and vibe and when its over... its over.

Personally I think that bands that won't go away are embarrassing and not worthy of admiration. If the Beatles are truly legendary, its because they had the conviction to blow the whole thing up before it got stale.

[NoGOPZone]

6. yes

I think a better question is whether an artist who dies during their prime would still be legendary

[LynneSin]

8. I don't think Queen would be eve half as huge as they are today if Freddie Mercury was alive

The last few albums Queen put out were wretchedly awful. The only claim to fame of any of them is that Lady Gaga got her name from a song from one of those albums (Radio GaGa).

[Tuesday Afternoon]

10. yes, I think so, Lynne. Possibly even bigger.

That Aura ... the charisma.

The hooks and the harmonies.

The Social Awareness.

They were the whole package.

Learning, Growing, Evolving.

I can see them doing solos albums, joint sessions with other artists, any combinations of two or three and then all four back together.

Yes, I can see it.

Nice to think about.

Thanks.

[pipi_k]

14. Hard to say, really...

It's possible they may have, but then a good part of the "mystique" would not have been there.

You know...the wondering about what else they may (or may not) have accomplished, musically speaking.

[WinkyDink]

15. Yes. Their legacy was already set. END OF STORY.

[dawg]

17. The Rolling Stones and solo Paul McCartney are the closest analogs I can think of.

I do think the Beatles would have remained bigger than the Stones, but anyone working against such great expectations is liable to eventually disappoint. People only have so much great music in them, and they must either try something different or else start repeating themselves.

In my imaginary universe, the Beatles stayed together and released an awesome prog-rock magnum opus in 1973.

[dipsydoodle]

18. No.

.

[MissMillie]

20. "Just a decade of recording music"?

some of the stuff they did was pretty innovative for the time.

[LynneSin]

21. Without a doubt it was but they were only a group between 1960-1970

So that was a decade.