If John, Paul, George, and I suppose Ringo as well, had never been born,

[raccoon]

Do you think some other group would have made it as big as they did?

[DBoon]

1. The Beach Boys?

nt

[red dog 1]

15. + 1

The very first record album I ever t was "Surfin Safari" (shows my age but who cares?)

[Brother Buzz]

18. Independently, both bands were destined to do well

But I find it interesting, the competition raised the quality of both bands by pushing the envelope

To wit:

Brian Wilson's Pet Sounds and the Beatles Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. Both seminal works of art.

[hlthe2b]

2. "I suppose Ringo".... LOL. I'm guessing you aren't a fan of poor Ringo.

[raccoon]

4. I like Ringo, I just don't think his talent is anywhere comparable to the others.

I just don’t think his talent is anywhere comparable to the others. However he did seem to fit in with the group, went with the flow and didn’t make waves.

[Aristus]

11. I don't think The Beatles would have been The Beatles without Ringo.

He brought a lot to the group; his warm personality, his devilish sense of humor, his everyman quality; Paul and John made a virtue of necessity by writing songs within Ringo's limited range. I don't think "With A Little Help From My Friends" would have been as appealing if Ringo hadn't sung it. Not the least of which reasons is that the song opens essentially with a confession: "Yes, I don't sing very well, but please listen anyway." And we did...

[Brother Buzz]

19. Ringo, a south paw drummer playing a right hand kit and produced a unique sound.....

few drummers could replicate. Many people dismissed his drumming as mediocre, that is until you talk with other drummers; his quirky beat added texture to the music.

[KPN]

30. You underestimate Ringo. His low-key drumming was/is distinctly unique anfit the Beatles perfectly.

Maybe he wasn't flashy, but he knew when and how not to drum as well as anyone. And that's a talent that many drummers lack. Seriously ... listen to his drumming some time. He's pretty darned good. And keep in mind that Paul McCartney says he's the best drummer ever -- that's a lot of cachet right there.

[edbermac]

35. What? Ringo put the BEAT in BEATLES!

Replace him with a drummer like Ginger Baker or Keith Moon, they would not be the same. He couldn't sing to save his life, but he could play the drums as well as Macca could play the bass or George the lead guitar.

[IluvPitties]

28. Both John Bonham and Bill Ward smoke Ringo.

[hlthe2b]

29. yeah.. Ringo was the Rodney Dangerfield of the Beatles...

LOL... poor Ringo

[underpants]

3. Yes the time was just right for it.

Remember they appeared on Sullivan only 3 months after JFK was killed. Cronkite apparently had the last word saying "It's time for the country to have fun again".

[Eliot Rosewater]

5. Ringo was the only real musician at the time they came together, so to speak, or the only

successful musician.

He played perfectly for the relatively simple songs they recorded initially, but simplicity isnt really all that easy, either.

As to your question, probably not, not like THAT!

[jodymarie aimee]

6. all of our guys..I mean all of them born in the 1950s

from famous ones...Henley, Frey, Browne, Byrds, Crosby, Stills, the BAND, Dylan....to the non famous ones, like my brother and all his pals got into music after seeing the BEATLES on Ed Sullivan...it was perfect timing and fate.....

and how lucky we were to be the fans of all these magnificent musicians...

[raccoon]

9. ITA. IMHO there's never been such a gaggle of enormously

Talented musicians at one time—nor will there ever be again.

[shanny]

10. Just an FYI: I'm pretty sure all those people were born in the 1940s

[BillE]

13. Correct

John Lennon born 10/9/1940 died at age 40
Paul McCartney born 6/18/1942 age 76
George Harrison born 2/25/1943 died at age 58
Ringo Starr born 7/7/1940 age 78

[jodymarie aimee]

20. I meant OUR guys that were inspired by the BEATLES

not the actual BEATLE birthdays !! Stay with me, now...

[shanny]

22. "I think all those guys were born in the 40s"

Don Henley b 1947
Glenn Frey 1948
Jackson Browne 1948

the Byrds (original):
Roger McGuinn 1942
Gene Clark 1944
Chris Hillman 1944
Michael Clarke 1946
David Crosby 1941

Stephen Stills 1945
Bob Dylan 1941

The Band (original)
Rick Danko 1943
Richard Manuel 1943
Robbie Robertson 1943
Levon Helm 1940

But I was wrong: not all of them were born in the 40s:
Garth Hudson (another original member of The Band) was born in 1937

[lunamagica]

7. No, I don't think so

[GeorgeGist]

8. Nope

[skylucy]

12. No! Beatles forever!

[Lint Head]

14. Yes. The Rutles

[red dog 1]

16. Good question!

I'm not sure, actually.

If Elvis had never been born, would any one else have been as big as he was back in the '50s?

[raccoon]

23. If the past had been somewhat different, that person might've been Chuck Berry. Nt

[msongs]

17. fabian world tour 2018. special guests paul peterson, shelly fabares. t

[CTyankee]

21. My son LOVED the Beatles but he might just say that The Monkees were a rival...

[Harker]

24. The Rolling Stones

But I suppose that depends what measurements one applies.

[malthaussen]

25. Having just finished Tune In for the fourth time...

... I doubt it. Technical musicianship was only part of the reason why the Beatles created a revolution, and probably the least part. I can't think of any musician with their combination of charisma, arrogance, ambition, and creativity, let alone four.

And while you're speculating, ask what might have happened if Brian Epstein or George Martin had not been born, or if the latter hadn't been having an affair with his secretary.

-- Mal

[Yavin4]

26. No. That combination of talent and timing is impossible to duplicate.

Great art cannot be mass produced or easily replicated. It happens or it doesn't. That's what makes it special.

[defacto7]

27. What a boring world it would be.

[KPN]

31. No, not so conspicuously as they did.

[mythology]

32. Sure, the other three without McCartney they would have been a bigger band

McCartney is a narcissistic egomaniac. The rest of the Beatles would have been better off without him.

[Harker]

36. Interesting point.

If pressed to decide between Lennon or McCartney, I'd much rather listen to the Lennon and Lennon-heavy work. However, those "silly love songs" did give the Beatles canon a much richer texture, and the extent to which McCartney had a helpful inspirational and musical effect on Lennon will never be fully known.

For valuable insight into what a George Martin produced band lacking magical chemistry sounded like, there's Billy J. Kramer and The Dakotas.

[Snellius]

33. The Beatles came just after Kennedy was assassinated and everyone needed an uplift

They became what they became but when they first came to America they were actually pretty silly, the fab four haircuts and corny kidding around, especially for those of us who grew up with greaser rock and rock. Above all else they were fun and funny and positive and uplifted the mood of those depressing times. And they weren't American.

[jmowreader]

34. Well...

...except for the Stones, the Who and the Kinks?