Top Ten Things the Beatles Shouldn't Have Done
The Top Ten
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! - MontyPython
I know, but still. Whether he's a rockstar/easy goer or not, it still happened. Whatever though, he still was the same old great, fantastic George he always was. George for the win! - MontyPython
They what- - BananaBrain
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. - Billyv
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.
They shouldn't have said it, because it caused a lot of anger. But it was true. - SammySpore
One of the things that lead to John Getting killed. As stated by the killer. - MoldySock
And the murderer was so rational that you cite his statements as fact? There were many more significant factors - such as Mark David Chapman's birth - Billyv
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 - Billyv
This is great and creepy, but god damn it does not fit on a Beatles album. - SammySpore
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 - Billyv
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. - Alpha101
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 - Billyv
-the original item listed to which I wrote a response was something like 'let Dylan introduce them to smoking marijuana' - Billyv
If they didn't take drugs their whole history might be different. - SammySpore
Oh, so your precious band can take drugs but when somebody else does it you frown upon them? Hypocrites. - SwagFlicks
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 - Billyv
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 - Billyv
I'd wish they hadn't, but they chose to, should have at some point, needed to evolve both personally and professionally, deserved to pursue their individual preferences after working together and for the group since their mid-teens, and each continued to give great musical entertainment and enjoyment to the world - Billyv
They had been together since the beginning of the 1960s, they wanted to break up.
Only the basis for capturing radio airplay, the key to gaining attention of fans, early record sales, financial success and creative freedom... - Billyv
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. - keycha1n
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 - Billyv
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.
Become a band? Really dude? One of the best bands of all time you want to not exist? Rather bad opinion, actually no I'm pretty sure it's a wrong opinion. - MoldySock