For those of you who didn't grow up in a house with 24/7 oldies radio (or aren't old enough to remember the hype surrounding their one-off reunion), the Beatles were a quirky English pop group who had a bunch of hit records and an insanely huge following from about 1964 to 1966. It seems a bit ridiculous now, but "Beatlemania" was a massive phenomenon in that brief period, here is just a tiny taste of it at its peak. Fans would actually try to cut off pieces of these guys' hair as keepsakes, and some people thought they could literally heal the sick. Ironically, the Beatles' success also hastened their demise. The stresses of fame, coupled with a slew of controversies and an underwhelming response to their final album led to the dissolution of the group shortly after their 1966 tour of the United States.
Their final album - Revolver - has undergone quite a bit of reappraisal over the last 30 years or so. Though it was largely overlooked when it came out (understandable, considering everything else that was going on around that time), it's a good, surprisingly consistent collection of psychedelic pop. The popular consensus seems to be that it was the perfect swan song for the group, and that they ended on a high note, having finally hit maturity but going out on top before they became formulaic and passe. That said, there has always been a contingent of fans with a dissenting view, who feel as though the group could have continued to evolve. They often cite the handful of moderate hits that individual group members went on to achieve in the latter half of the decade (ask your parents if they remember "Strawberry Fields Forever").
If the Beatles had lasted beyond 1966, do you think they could have remained relevant and successful? Or were they truly a relic of the "British Invasion" who bowed out at just the right time?
Their final album - Revolver - has undergone quite a bit of reappraisal over the last 30 years or so. Though it was largely overlooked when it came out (understandable, considering everything else that was going on around that time), it's a good, surprisingly consistent collection of psychedelic pop. The popular consensus seems to be that it was the perfect swan song for the group, and that they ended on a high note, having finally hit maturity but going out on top before they became formulaic and passe. That said, there has always been a contingent of fans with a dissenting view, who feel as though the group could have continued to evolve. They often cite the handful of moderate hits that individual group members went on to achieve in the latter half of the decade (ask your parents if they remember "Strawberry Fields Forever").
If the Beatles had lasted beyond 1966, do you think they could have remained relevant and successful? Or were they truly a relic of the "British Invasion" who bowed out at just the right time?
Last edited: