Seven years and seven months. That’s how long the world officially knew the Beatles as a recording act, spanning from the date they released their first single in England to the day their breakup was announced on April 10, 1970.
Looking back after 40 years, that seems like a ridiculously short lifespan for such an important band. The time frame seems ever tinier considering the longevity of other popular bands of their era, like the Rolling Stones, the Who and the Kinks, or bands that came later, like Bon Jovi and U2.
It's also hard to imagine what they would've come up with after much more time together. But then, I couldn't have thought up Sgt Pepper when A Hard Days Night came out, so I guess that's why they're the Beatles and I'm not. But this following fact seems fairly incredible:
Although I guess it shouldn't be that surprising, considering a few months ago data showed that the simple fact is that young kids still love the Beatles. Awesome.Rolling Stone reported in December the surprising fact that the Beatles had the biggest selling album of the last decade with “1,” and that they were second only to Eminem as the top selling artists of the decade.
Also that makes it even funnier how close they were with George Martin.
2 comments:
"I think all Beatles lovers are happy that they never turned into the Stones, embarrassing themselves by going around the world for mounds of cash in their 100's looking like fools."
Um, McCartney is older than 3 of the 4 remaining Stones. (Sorry, Charlie.) Granted, he's not The Beatles but do you feel the same way about Macca?
Well you could make that argument, but to me it's a stretch. The Beatles literally ceased making music in 1969/70. McCartney has put out new music since then, but never under the Beatles name (thank God.) The Stones have no problem spending about 3 decades putting out less than stellar stuff under the name The Rolling Stones. Also they still try to be "dangerous and sexy!" mewling about onstage; McCartney's more "I'm an old man, sure ill play some old Beatles songs."
Though it might be best to stick with the actual point of making new music, which the Beatles did when they did and then stopped, unlike the Stones. Paul is not the Beatles, nor does he claim to be.
Post a Comment