It's been 40 years... why hasn't there been another Beatles?

Read up on Einstein; a number of other physicists were noodling around the same concepts - I want to cite Paul Dirac and a Hungarian or two; there is an element of right place/right time to all of this stuff…look at Darwin vs. Wallace, Newton vs. Leibniz.

Hundreds of years from now the music of the Beatles will be played or at least referenced as representative of this era - and that has nothing to do with anything other than the fact that the music is incredible, regardless of societal forces at the time.

ETA: okay, I checked and it’s NOT Dirac I am thinking of - he came later…lemme check. Ah, I think it was Poincare…

I think there are two aspects to the Beatles influence that haven’t been mentioned yet: the fact that they basically, well, not quite invented, but established and popularized the classic modern rock band format, and, together with Dylan (yes, with some others too), transformed juvenile rock’n roll to mature, sophisticated rock, thus forever coining the genre. (I don’t want to diminish pre-Beatles rock’n roll in any way, but I’m sure you’ll get what I mean).

Now some may argue that rock is a dying beast (well, I think it was first declared dead around 1960), but there are still, as witnessed in this thread, millions of kids with guitars, bass and drums, cutting their teeth in some garage, hoping to make it big someday.

These feats just cannot be repeated in rock, so anybody who wants to be called “the new Beatles” must do their stuff in a different genre. I’m not an Apple fan (just indifferent), but I think that analogy was sound.

With the Einstein example, I have no difficulty in accepting the right place / right time explanation. Out of the handful of physicist geniuses in history, he somehow rose to the top of the list, and I’m sure that luck played some part in it.

I’m just not sure how you can then make the leap of faith that the Beatles success was truly due to something special about their music.

You described a situation where a talented person/group emerged to be at the forefront of an innovation that affected the world - they may not have been the first to innovate, but their activity became the example for that innovation.

The Beatles fulfill that role in terms of rock music - that much has been established thus far historically. If you can’t hear what is special in their music, I doubt I could explain it to you. But it is special enough to stand past the novelty of its creation.

Have you heard that much music from the Beatles’ heyday? Not just the classics that get played again & again, but the other stuff that those of us there in the day remember? A lot of it was dreck (Lou Christie & Gary Puckett, I’m talking about you) & some was good for dancing but not memorable.

The Stones, The Who & The Kinks were also pretty high in the ranks of the British Invasion; their energy fed upon Beatlemania & vice versa. (Still, we had the Beach Boys; yeah, Pet Sounds was arty but their singles were amazing & still bring a smile.)

Beatlemania was partly a Perfect Media Storm, but they were a talented & versatile group. Not that lots of really fine music hasn’t been made since. Why do people need The Next Beatles or The Next Elvis? Not to mention The Next Dylan Curse that plagued every young guy with a guitar for years…

It certainly plagued Bob Dylan.

Are you posting from an iPod? You quoted me at length and un-capitalized almost every proper noun in my post, and I’m really curious how that happened.

Rolling Stone magazine, in a giant double-sized issue about 20 years ago, attempted a big line chart that showed the lines of influence from early rock bands to contemporary ones–Chuck Berry begat the Stones who begat Aerosmith, Alice Cooper influenced Kiss who influenced Pantera, etc. The big surprise was how quickly the Beatles line stopped; only Badfinger was listed as a direct influence. Culturally, they emboldened every kid with a guitar and a garage to throw together a band, but musically, it’s kind of the kiss of death to call your band “Beatles-influenced” (as opposed to, say, “Bowie-influenced” or “Iggy Pop-influenced”). The downside of their massive popularity is, they have no snob appeal. Calling them your favorite band is a bit like calling James Michener your favorite writer.

But the list is about bands. How many black musicians can you name that are in groups? Let’s see, there’s The Roots, The Black Eye Peas and then?

I can think of loads. (For starters, how many guys do they have in P-Funk these days?) But the number of black musicians who are in well-known rock bands with a significant number of listeners is significantly smaller, and I’m sure it’s dwarfed by the number of black rappers and R&B solo artists.

To write that, I suppose you’re as white as a baker’s ass. Fucking leukomasochist.

Go get mugged by some ‘diversity’ :rolleyes:

To be fair, it wasn’t societal forces that KO’d Sonny Liston and George Foreman.

That’s true. I always felt that other heavyweights throughout history had at least the same level of success in the ring as Ali. But he stands out from that crowd due to other factors.

You’re not allowed to harm on other posters on the SDMB. This is a formal warning; please don’t do this again.

Key point: “practicing in a garage”. The Beatles performed in front of an audience while they were honing their skills. And they performed a lot.

From The Beatles in Hamburg:

That’s easy. :wink: Frank Sinatra. He was the first huge pop star, he literally had teen girls screaming & fainting at concerts. Of course, without television he didn’t get the same numbers a the Beatles. The girls were called Bobby Soxers.

Ol Blue Eyes set the trend for Elvis and The Beatles. They had teen girls fainting too.

What’s different about the Beatles is once they appeared it CHANGED the direction of music.

This wasn’t as overnight as people think, but it did change. For exmple it was Louis Armstrong’s “Hello Dolly” that ended the run of Beatles hits at #1.

There have been similar artists but unlike the Beatles they didn’t CHANGE the direction of music, but capitalized on that change. Madonna is the best example. The Bee Gees are another. Like Madonna, the Bee Gees, capitalized on disco, but couldn’t change over when disco died. Madonna on the other hand was able to change and capitalize on the style of music.

Also the rock era ended, though no one will admit this and Hip/Hop, R&B and Rap have become the mainstream pop, that rock & roll dominated. Before rock it was the “Tin Pan Alley” era that dominated main stream pop.

The Beatles also came along at the right time. Radio had just spent a decade of adjustment. Moving from drama/comedy programs into music full time. The 50s were a time radio was experimenting with various themes before arriving at a music/DJ format.

You can’t compare music today with music of past either. The way it’s sold, the charts are all calculated very differently making comparisons impossible.

If you look at the change from rock to R&B/Hip Hop/Rap as mainsteam you can see it was very gradual and no one had a lock on it, like the Beatles had when they started.

If you look at the early 80s you find popular black acts like Michael Jackson, Whitney Houston, the Pointer Sisters who were all making mainsteam “white” pop music. Whitney Houston and the Pointer Sisters were especially pointed out as not being “black enough”

So you had a very gradual transition in the 80s, lasting into the 90s and by the beginning of the 00s, you had times when R&B/Hip Hop/Rap so dominated the pop charts, Billboard had to create a new one.

Which leads to another reason you aren’t likely to see another Beatles, as the market is SO splintered and albums aren’t selling like singles. Now poeple can buy ONLY the tracks they like. This means people that bought albums for one song and discovered other tracks they liked, don’t do this anymore, at least not in large numbers.

And that leads to the final reason, the ability to own lots of music cheaply.

This means acts of today are not only competing with themselves but OTHER acts as well. For instance, the Eagles OLD albums still sell well. CDs are largely responsible for this, as people dumped their vinyl ablums for CDs and replaced them. This lead to the “children of the 90s” discovering music from old times.

The odd thing about the Beatles was it took years for them to become popular.

They toured Germany before America. They did ok and attracted fans. But, they certainly weren’t a huge hit. Before touring America they got repackaged by their promoter. They all got the Beatle Haircut, the black suits etc. The moment they stepped off that plane they were huge hits in the U.S.

I doubt that will ever happen again.

No one admits it because it’s not true. Rock acts outsell every other genre COMBINED. Part of that is due to the continued success of The Beatles, The Stones, The Beach Boys, The Eagles and a lot of other 60s/70s rock acts.

There just aren’t very many classic rap/pop/R&B albums that continue to sell more than a few years after they’re released.