The blog post argues against the common narrative that the Beatles single-handedly killed the careers of numerous 1950s and early 1960s rock and pop artists. It contends that many factors contributed to the shifting musical landscape, including changing audience tastes, the emergence of other influential bands, and the natural evolution of popular music. While acknowledging the Beatles' immense impact, the author emphasizes that artists like Fabian and Frankie Avalon were already fading in popularity before Beatlemania hit, and others, like Elvis, successfully adapted. The post concludes that attributing widespread career destruction solely to the Beatles is an oversimplification of a complex cultural shift.
The blog post "How Many Artists' Careers Did The Beatles Kill?" posits a provocative, albeit arguably hyperbolic, question: Did the immense popularity of the Beatles effectively stifle the careers of other contemporary musicians? The author acknowledges the inherent difficulty in definitively proving such a claim, recognizing the multifaceted nature of musical success and the myriad factors influencing an artist's trajectory. The post then proceeds to explore this complex issue through a series of illustrative examples. It details several artists who experienced a notable decline in chart performance coincident with the rise of Beatlemania, suggesting a correlative, if not necessarily causal, relationship. These examples span a range of musical genres, from established performers whose popularity waned during the Beatles' reign to emerging artists who seemingly struggled to gain traction in the face of the Fab Four's overwhelming dominance. The author elaborates on specific instances, such as Gerry and the Pacemakers, a band managed by Brian Epstein, the same manager as the Beatles, whose chart success seemed to diminish as the Beatles' star ascended. Furthermore, the blog post highlights the transformative impact the Beatles had on the music industry itself, arguing that their innovative approach to songwriting, studio recording, and album art raised the bar for other artists, potentially making it more challenging for those who couldn't adapt or compete with this new paradigm. While refraining from explicitly stating that the Beatles single-handedly destroyed any careers, the author implies that their cultural impact undeniably reshaped the musical landscape, creating a significantly more competitive environment in which some artists inevitably struggled to thrive. The post concludes with a nuanced perspective, acknowledging that while the Beatles' influence was profound, attributing the decline of other artists solely to their presence would be an oversimplification of a complex historical narrative within the music industry.
Summary of Comments ( 166 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43373765
HN commenters largely debated the premise of the linked article, which argues the Beatles stifled the careers of many other artists. Some agreed, pointing to the overwhelming popularity of the Beatles and the difficulty other bands had getting attention. Others argued that the Beatles' influence was positive, inspiring countless musicians and expanding the possibilities of popular music. Several commenters brought up the cyclical nature of popular music, suggesting that the Beatles' rise coincided with a natural shift in the music scene, and that other artists would have been supplanted regardless. The idea of a limited "attention budget" was also discussed, with some arguing the Beatles consumed the majority of it. Finally, several commenters pointed to specific artists, like The Zombies and Gerry and the Pacemakers, as potential examples of bands negatively impacted by the Beatles' dominance.
The Hacker News post "How many artists' careers did the Beatles kill?" with the link to the article "How many artists did the Beatles kill?" generated a moderate number of comments, most of which challenged the central premise of the linked article. There's a general consensus among commenters that the article's argument is flawed and oversimplified.
Several commenters pointed out the difficulty in proving causation between the Beatles' success and the decline of other artists' careers. They argue that correlating the Beatles' rise with other artists' fall doesn't necessarily imply causation. Other factors, like changing musical tastes, the evolution of the music industry, and the individual artists' own choices and trajectories, could have played a significant role. One commenter specifically mentions that many of the artists cited in the article had already peaked or were on their way down before the Beatles reached peak popularity.
Some commenters suggest that instead of "killing" careers, the Beatles, along with other British Invasion bands, invigorated the music scene and influenced a new generation of artists. They argue the Beatles' impact was more about changing the landscape rather than eliminating competition. One commenter even proposes that the Beatles' success may have inadvertently helped some artists by expanding the overall market for popular music.
A few commenters discuss specific artists mentioned in the article, offering counter-arguments about their career trajectories. For instance, regarding the claim about Gerry and the Pacemakers, a commenter points out that the band's popularity was already waning, and their decline was likely due to internal factors rather than external competition.
While some comments acknowledge that the Beatles' immense popularity undoubtedly had an impact on the music scene, they reject the notion that they single-handedly "killed" other artists' careers. The overall sentiment leans towards a more nuanced understanding of the dynamic music industry of the 1960s, where numerous factors contributed to artists' success and failure. The comments generally find the article's thesis too simplistic and lacking in sufficient evidence.