Top Ten Things the Beatles Shouldn't Have Done
The only one I agree with on this list. When they went to Hamburg near the beginning of their career, John found out George was a virgin and got him a prostitute. Soon, the lads watched the... "Magic" happen. Poor George. Love takes time, and a kid like him needs his privacy!
This is often so misunderstood and taken out of context. John Did Not say this as if it were a Good thing (in his opinion)! He was making an accurate observation and commentary on mainstream society. To the vocal masses and media at the time, The Beatles were being showered with praise and treated like the coming of gods. They were being given more attention than just about Anything - (including the real threat of nuclear war between the USA and Soviet Union for example). He was pointing out the imbalance of their popularity, the mistaken priority.
No one would have had a temper tantrum if John said it in Britain.
America is too sensitive with Christianity, they take things too serious.
It was a joke, but Americans have that Bible Belt. Then at the same decade Holy Land USA, Waterbury, Connecticut a now abandoned amusement park was full of visitors.
One of the things that lead to John Getting killed. As stated by the killer.
Both great examples of some of the outer boundaries of their experimentation and creativity, as well as part of their defining legacy and history. Also, while among the more controversial recordings, the 2 songs are actually enjoyed by large percentages of their fans
This is great and creepy, but god damn it does not fit on a Beatles album.
Their movies were successful and enjoyed by most of their fans, as well as now being great reflections on their personalities and aspects of the Beatlemania phenomenon.
They are also credited with being among the earliest developers of format which became the latter-era music video industry
I'm actually okay with it as long as they don't take excessive amounts of said drugs. Drugs expand your mind, and some of the best artists/bands in history took drugs. Sadly, most abuse substances, and end up paying the price for it, such as losing money, family, their job, or, in some cases, dying. The Beatles did take a lot of drugs, but it never really affected them, from what I've read. I'm not pro-drug, and drugs are obviously bad, but I don't think people who take drugs are bad people. Art gets stale after a while, and by doing drugs, it gives you that creative spark that you lost long ago. I'm never taking drugs, though, because I'm not sure if I could deal with the consequences.
Yeh, let's blame Dylan as everyone knows the boys were innocent and never dabbled in questionable substances, weren't curious about weed, and wouldn't have encountered or ingested it otherwise. That's before we mention the stimulation to their creativity which can't be measured but wouldn't have been the same - so again the choice is to drastically alter their path of development and thus change what they were/became.
Also, London and other European cultural and music scenes have usually been much more open and tolerant of substance use than the USA - I thnk fate and environment playd a larger role than Dylan in this - unless you're point is that they just shouldn't have smoked with Bob, and that's something Completely different
If they didn't take drugs their whole history might be different.
Traveling and performing in Hamburg actually helped the band develop their early sound, learn how to play and perform to captivate audiences and nurture and begin their recognition and popularity. It also was an essential part of "paying their dues" - maybe a concept unfamiliar to those who can immediately post music, videos, etc online and tweet to try to gain attention
Well, first of all "The Beatles" didn't do this; John and Yoko did. And they wanted to marry and they enjoyed their marriage. I suppose the point is that it may have led to the band's breakup, but all four members needed to prioritize their personal lives and individual choices for their futures above what may or may not be best for the band eventually - and certainly over what might be most desired by fans
They had been together since the beginning of the 1960s, they wanted to break up.
I'll vote for the concept that they "shouldn't have not reunited in public" given the list title and what seems to be the intent behind this item and it's the only orignal item on the list that I can even partially agree with.
BUT - did someone actually attempt this list without some strong reasons and argumentative support?
Many of the items listed were actually keys to the development and success of the band's foundation and the evolution of a phenomenal career. You want to change their recipe and path to success? Best joke of the year
Only the basis for capturing radio airplay, the key to gaining attention of fans, early record sales, financial success and creative freedom...
They're a pop band, what else would they release, rap songs?
Meh, I enjoyed Maxwells Silver Hammer. Can't deny its catchiness, at least. I think it's a love-hate thing.
Of course we know that all four of the Lads [even Ringo] had that un-definable "IT" factor, and all would have been big stars as solo acts or in other bands.
The chemical reaction created by the combination was something that can never be duplicated.
We are fortunate that they managed to stay together as long as they did, that kind of pressure has blown numerous lesser acts to bits in just a year or two.