Quote:
Originally Posted by These guys
Because by the very nature of being the offspring of the four original Beatles members, they become part of a musical dynasty, and by creating any kind of ensemble together, their band becomes a musical descendent of the Beatles, so to speak. But this should only be an observation, not something that prejudices the merit of a hypothetical super group.
Unless they wish to somehow "reform" the Beatles and release records under that moniker, the comparisons to their fathers are anecdotes and should have no real weight on whether or not this would be a "good idea" or "bad idea". It all depends on the end result.
|
How would they be a supergroup? Am I missing something here? Before today I'd never heard of a single of their releases, and no one on this forum ever talks about them either positively or negatively. Considering we talk about everything here, I'd say that is pretty telling that none of them should be considered anything monumentally groundbreaking. I refute the idea that they'd become part of any "musical dynasty", because the idea that they're relation to the Beatles in any way, shape, or form is anything but genetic. Were they influenced by their fathers? Sure, who ****ing wasn't? Just because they are the offspring of the Beatles DOES NOT MEAN they are a musical descendant of them. How could you seriously believe this? They're legacies are mutually exclusive of anything either band produces.