The key to Beatlemania 1963-64 is that the Beatles were ready to seize the moment, thanks to deep live-performance experience (Hamburg), personality charisma (quick, wry repartee at press conferences; and charms that appealed to all ages).
The moment was marked by quick production possibilities in recording and film-making.
The quasi-documentary film, "A Hard Day's Night," vividly established the distinct personalities of John, Paul, George, and Ringo. Don't underestimate the role of this film!
The early songs ranged from ballads ("Michelle") to rock n roll ("When I Saw Her Standing There").
And the 4 November 1963 Royal Command Performance in London (with the Queen present in the audience), when Paul sang, "Til There Was You," and John introduced "Twist and Shout" by saying, "Would the people in the cheaper seats clap your hands, and the rest of you, if you just rattle your jewellery."
After Beatlemania, the boys grew with the changin' times, changed the times, always listening, absorbing, searching, experimenting, innovating.
Thanks Arnold for reminding us how little we know about human success. We know more about extreme cases of success and failure thanks to the idiots that want to persuade us about how poorly we manage success and the fearmongers that want to take control of our lives.
The Beatles probably wrote the great majority of what was in them in six years. 26 years would not have produced very much more. So no, a comparable group could not have taken twenty years to match that production. Creativity doesn't work that way. Adversity, stress, and not enough time all combine to spur creativity.
Maayyybe. But given what Paul, John, and George did separately after the break up of the band, I suspect they would have had many more successes if they had continued.
I have just read (again) George Wilder's review of Niall Ferguson's Doom: The Politics of Catastrophe. This is the link to the review titled "Doom to Succeed"
Yes, Niall and George are talking about humanity, not about the Beatles or Elvis Presley. Both are too arrogant to make big claims about humanity but their arguments are much better than anything you or anyone else can say about the Beatles or Elvis Presley. I suggest you change your mentor.
that links to a terrible NYT article, full of BS. Tyler writes long opinion pages about progress and his support to innovation but only a few words on his daily links to NYT's BS.
Indeed, Tyler and you prefer to ignore the day's big stories. What about Canada? Are Canada's freedom fighters doomed to fail or to succeed?
I tend to think of success as a bell curve, which is the pattern you should expect when success is the sum of many small factors. Talent, work, and connections are certainly factors. The many factors that individuals can't control are collectively called "luck".
Most people get average results because some of their factors are beneficial and others harmful. The most successful people in the world are the ones where every factor breaks in their favor. You can't reach that level without incredible talent, extremely hard work, and cultivating connections, but you also can't reach it without amazing luck.
Sunstein's piece (in the Journal of Beatles Studies!) misses an important truth. There are no timeless standards in "the arts". It's all genre-specific and time-specific.
What is considered the very best hip-hop today would be considered awful at the time of the Beatles, because no one at the time would have thought hip-hop to be decent music--if it was music at all. The same thing would happen if modern country played on a country music station in 1963: "Stop playing that crap!" By 1963, the Beatles were very skillful at what turned out to be a very popular music form.
Cezanne would not have been well-regarded in the time of Rembrandt, and Rembrandt would have been dismissed as stuffy and old-fashioned in the time of Cezanne.
The elders were always right- talented, hard-working people create their own good luck. Part of what is going wrong today is that we have forgotten this fundamental truth and seem to believe luck, good and bad, is something that is granted by others.
Talent and hard work may be important in being successful vs. unsuccessful, but once you're at the level of being one of the best few hundred people in the world at what you do, I'd bet that whether you 'make it big' increasingly depends on being one of the few of that subset that's in the right place at the right time.
Which is exactly my point- they are one of the few that even has a chance to be in the right place at the right time. However, "once you're at the level of being one of the best few hundred people in the world at what you do", you have already succeeded at making it big. What you are describing is making it bigger than big.
+1.
The key to Beatlemania 1963-64 is that the Beatles were ready to seize the moment, thanks to deep live-performance experience (Hamburg), personality charisma (quick, wry repartee at press conferences; and charms that appealed to all ages).
The moment was marked by quick production possibilities in recording and film-making.
The quasi-documentary film, "A Hard Day's Night," vividly established the distinct personalities of John, Paul, George, and Ringo. Don't underestimate the role of this film!
The early songs ranged from ballads ("Michelle") to rock n roll ("When I Saw Her Standing There").
And the 4 November 1963 Royal Command Performance in London (with the Queen present in the audience), when Paul sang, "Til There Was You," and John introduced "Twist and Shout" by saying, "Would the people in the cheaper seats clap your hands, and the rest of you, if you just rattle your jewellery."
After Beatlemania, the boys grew with the changin' times, changed the times, always listening, absorbing, searching, experimenting, innovating.
Every record was astonishing at the time.
Were Lennon and McCartney intending on creating viral success in that Hamburg period or did they just enjoy composing lots of music?
Thanks Arnold for reminding us how little we know about human success. We know more about extreme cases of success and failure thanks to the idiots that want to persuade us about how poorly we manage success and the fearmongers that want to take control of our lives.
The Beatles probably wrote the great majority of what was in them in six years. 26 years would not have produced very much more. So no, a comparable group could not have taken twenty years to match that production. Creativity doesn't work that way. Adversity, stress, and not enough time all combine to spur creativity.
Maayyybe. But given what Paul, John, and George did separately after the break up of the band, I suspect they would have had many more successes if they had continued.
I have just read (again) George Wilder's review of Niall Ferguson's Doom: The Politics of Catastrophe. This is the link to the review titled "Doom to Succeed"
https://newcriterion.com/issues/2021/9/doomed-to-succeed
Yes, Niall and George are talking about humanity, not about the Beatles or Elvis Presley. Both are too arrogant to make big claims about humanity but their arguments are much better than anything you or anyone else can say about the Beatles or Elvis Presley. I suggest you change your mentor.
Further evidence that you should change your mentor. Tyler's last post is
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2022/02/the-culture-that-is-portland.html#comments
that links to a terrible NYT article, full of BS. Tyler writes long opinion pages about progress and his support to innovation but only a few words on his daily links to NYT's BS.
Indeed, Tyler and you prefer to ignore the day's big stories. What about Canada? Are Canada's freedom fighters doomed to fail or to succeed?
I tend to think of success as a bell curve, which is the pattern you should expect when success is the sum of many small factors. Talent, work, and connections are certainly factors. The many factors that individuals can't control are collectively called "luck".
Most people get average results because some of their factors are beneficial and others harmful. The most successful people in the world are the ones where every factor breaks in their favor. You can't reach that level without incredible talent, extremely hard work, and cultivating connections, but you also can't reach it without amazing luck.
Sunstein's piece (in the Journal of Beatles Studies!) misses an important truth. There are no timeless standards in "the arts". It's all genre-specific and time-specific.
What is considered the very best hip-hop today would be considered awful at the time of the Beatles, because no one at the time would have thought hip-hop to be decent music--if it was music at all. The same thing would happen if modern country played on a country music station in 1963: "Stop playing that crap!" By 1963, the Beatles were very skillful at what turned out to be a very popular music form.
Cezanne would not have been well-regarded in the time of Rembrandt, and Rembrandt would have been dismissed as stuffy and old-fashioned in the time of Cezanne.
The elders were always right- talented, hard-working people create their own good luck. Part of what is going wrong today is that we have forgotten this fundamental truth and seem to believe luck, good and bad, is something that is granted by others.
Talent and hard work may be important in being successful vs. unsuccessful, but once you're at the level of being one of the best few hundred people in the world at what you do, I'd bet that whether you 'make it big' increasingly depends on being one of the few of that subset that's in the right place at the right time.
Which is exactly my point- they are one of the few that even has a chance to be in the right place at the right time. However, "once you're at the level of being one of the best few hundred people in the world at what you do", you have already succeeded at making it big. What you are describing is making it bigger than big.
"I could not help thinking that Hank Aaron was similarly fortunate-- that he often came to bat just as a home run was due to be hit."
http://www.tsowell.com/spcultur.html