Sorry. You made an untrue claim (that you haven't proven -- because you can't) then you put words in my mouth, and then argued against these made up words and then proclaimed some kind of weird victory. I find that rude. OK, maybe I chose some sarcastic language that hurt your feelings, but I stand by the gist of every.single. statement. which I've made. Perhaps that was unconstructive, perhaps I wasn't in a constructive mood. Don't know. Not even sure when I wrote it? Last night? This morning? Doesn't matter. Then, to add insult to injury, in this very post which I've quoted above you say: which is a wilful mischaracterization of my words. A flat-out lie. I did not say that at all. I said (paraphrasing, because my original statment offended you) that your assertion that they innovated more than anybody else was a myth and, frankly, nothing you have written has disproven that for me. EVEN if I accept your your wide-ranging, free-flowing, whatever-the-heck-I-want-it-to-mean definitions. And then you ask me what's wrong with me. Well, what's wrong with me, frankly, is your transparent sophistry: it's a little insulting that you would think almost anybody on this board (which has a higher than average IQ, I reckon) would not see through it. But enough bickering which I know is against the rules. (I suppose these posts will be deleted.) I too apologize to other posters, except those, of course, who are entertained by it. I wish I was.
As for the original question, I've thought about it quite a lot since I first saw it. I kind of doubt they would have continued to innovate, as almost none of the great innovators of the mid-sixties continued innovating during the sixties as far as I can tell. A lot of their technological innovations were born out of neccessity. As technology improved, their need to innovate lessened. However, I do think that they would have put out kick ass albums for as long as they stayed together. I mean, you just have to take the four best songs from each of their albums to see that. They were all three (John, Paul George) capable of filling half an album with great songs even at their weakest, IMO.
I'll leave others to decide if I made an untrue claim and flat out lies, if they can be bothered, as one thing we can probably both agree on, is that this is getting tedious. Anyway, I gave you a list of innovations you requested. You failed to provide any act with more innovations, that I requested. Therefore, you have not proven that it's a myth about Beatles' innovations and I have gone some way to providing some examples of their innovations. So again, I'll leave others to decide.
I couldn't haven said better myself! Is Pink Floyd at Pompeii your definition of 'magical'? Are these the only innovation you give the Beatles?? Let me guess: you like prog rock, right? (and the Moog is all over the album: Here Comes The Sun,Maxwell Silver Hammer, I Want You (She's So Heavy)...) I think they broke up at the right time. So they avoided all the grotesqueness of 70s rock.
Well, wait. I never made any claim such as you had. Why would I be obliged to prove or disprove your claim? That is on you. And you apparently can’t. That’s fine. You did make a list of innovations (some undoubted, others questionable) but that did not prove the central claim.
They gave away the 4 Maxwell Silver Shovels that were going to be used for breaking ground in this ground-breaking venture.
I think they could have broken additional ground even during their 62-70 run. Some bands that came up in the shadow of the Beatles (Pink Floyd and Grateful Dead in particular) really understood how important it is to give your fans an excellent sound experience, and they re-invested a huge amount of their overall wealth and income into constantly updating their stage sound presentation. The Beatles had much more money at their disposal, but instead frittered it away on Apple’s unfocused projects. Apple could have developed and marketed new sound systems for stadiums and theaters, along with improved portable PAs for bands. That would have been a solid business move, and it would have improved the likelihood that they would enjoy touring again. At the peak of their popularity during the touring years 64-66, they could have also been choosier about where they’d play, perhaps having a rider for minimum technical requirement or something like that. But they never did. It’s no wonder they hated touring by the end of it.
Perhaps so later on with their originals. IMO the Motown girl group stuff they filled out huge chunks of their early albums with is nowhere near as good as the original Motown artists IMO. More butchery than innovation there, the Beatles sound like a pale imitation, YMMV.
Yeah, he lost me at 'butched up' In answer to OP, no, they couldn't have broken more ground or pioneered more, because they had already broken ALL the ground that existed, or had even been IDEATED, by 1970. In their god-like munificence, in a kind of higher level Easter Egg Hunt, they actually INVENTED and DONATED a load of new ground for future generations to break, but of course their GENIUS was light-years ahead of the puny intellect & imagination of anyone who's followed...so this new ground hasn't even been spotted yet, let alone broken. They're not called 'Fab' for nothing, you know
Opinion respected, of course. For the most part, I never really did mental comparisons between their covers of other songs and the original versions. I do think they did great, energetic versions for the most part but I always heard them as their own entities while the original records were great in their own ways.
Spectacular? We definitely haven't seen the same footage. If you want spectacular Who action, try A Quick One While He's Away from Rock & Roll Circus. Yeah... It's always a great show to see someone battling his heroin addiction... You mean the over indulgent Pink Floyd's The Wall? Sure... This is a show that made them legends. Before that they were a struggling band. Right? it's a bit ridiculous... The rooftop is fine. It's quirky, it's unexpected. It's the Beatles!
If you consider how good they were on the rooftop, how great Lennon's vocals sounded at the Rock and roll Circus and Toronto, it leaves you wondering how they would have been as live performers. You don't like rock and roll? Or you just don't quite understand it? I'm just kidding. Anyway, to me, these hypothetical questions are more like fantasy stuff kids talk about. I wasn't all that serious about it. Didn't mean to upset anyone.
Oh I do! And I understand the snoozefests you refered to are not Rock n Roll. In the 70s it was just becoming plain entertainment, a well established industry of cool. Rock n roll was as 'dangerous' as, say, Barbara Streisand. No longer subversive or innovative. (and no, 45 minutes drums solos, triple neck guitars or 7 string-basses are not innovations)
I am sorry, I was not even talking seriously. The question was a fantasy - what would happen if Batman joined the Avengers type question.
The only thing that could have been improved is if, when they called it a day, they didn't end up having to sue each other. John, George and Ringo had to find out the hard way that Paul was right about Allen Klein. Ideally, they could have done one final concert to be recorded live like Let It Be was covering their career to call it quits but, like I said earlier, they lasted just the right amount of time and didn't over stay their welcome. The solo careers at first proved to be interesting and then not so interesting...then interesting again. It just proved that they were no more or less human than any other band.
