someonecompletelyrandom

Why is everyone so negative about this? It could be ****ing brilliant so long as they don't just become some kind of tribute band.

Euronomus

I generally agree, I think they could make some awesome music but the problem is one of expectations though, no matter what kind of amazing music they would make, there would be a million people constantly repeating "they're not as good as the Beatles". just looking at their skills individually though it could be amazing.

some vid's for those who haven't heard their stuff:

Sean Lennon singing my favorite song of his:


Dhani's band thenewno2


James's music(the weakest track on this list imo)


Zak Playing with Oasis:

__________________

someonecompletelyrandom

That's what I mean. They're all incredibly talented in their own rights. If they got together, they'd most likely make some great music. Who gives a fuck what the expectations are, or what people might say about them "not being as good." They could still make amazing music.

FETCHER.

I don't contemplate the fact that these guys are very talented but in general it's a bad idea. It's like they actually want to BE the beatles by starting a band with only the offpring of former members. If they were in a band with other people I would definitely have a different view. I feel like this is a money maker and that's all that has interested them in it or the fact they probably want to carry on some sort of legacy and actually live up to their fathers names. Whatever happens I don't really care because i was never one to think much of the beatles in the first place so my interest in wither their sons want to be like them is pretty much nil.

__________________

My Journal.
Last.Fm if your interested...

Screen13

There's no doubt that they know their music, but it still sounds like that it will be more of an easy going ride than something that will stand out.

John, Paul, and George had two major challenges to face which resulted in some excellent music which stood out - Getting The Beatles into the spotlight and trying to keep their stars shining after the split. Ringo thankfully had help from all three, but apart from the great 1973 album when everything fell into place perfectly, you can say that elsewhere besides the singles, it was a serious hit and miss, although it has been better than flops like 1978's Bad Boy recently. They grew up and apart in Public with some major contributions, most of them having a sharp attitude that seriously are Rock Classics today.

Howard the Duck

^^not to mention that Beatles were big around at a time when major cultural events were shifting society and also perceived notions of what music could accomplish

these days, we're mostly complaining about lack of downloads on the Internet and the use of Autotune, and whether we're heading for a 90s revival

things have changed so much since the 60s

and i hate to break it to you guys but the article said Zak is not that interested, but it's Jason Starkey (Ringo's younger son) who wanted to join

__________________


Malaise is THE dominant human predilection.

Screen13

^ Then, I'm not that interested. I checked out the videos today and went from there. My post of this morning edited for that fact.


Plus, The Beatles were seriously checking out major advancements in music that were heard in the mainstream at the time. The Byrds and Pet Sounds being two major influences.
Today...well, the only advancements are being made in the underground not really waiting for some CEO looking for a scene that can be filled with pale imitations (which is all the time).

Maybe Zak pretty much knows the score!
End of my opinion...onto other things.

someonecompletelyrandom

I think you're all seriously overthinking this. Fuck comparisons to the previous incarnation of the Beatles, fuck innovation or shifting cultural perspectives, I just want to hear four very talented people get together and make some good records. Continuing the legacy of their fathers doesn't mean they have to become the biggest band in the world again.

anticipation

This is what I have a problem with. How on Earth can you endorse them when you openly admit that the motivation for this would be to somehow revere with what their fathers did when they made no contributions in anyway to the Beatles or their legacy. The only way this would be worthwhile is if they completely disassociated themselves from the whole sentimental bull**** and actually focused on making music as a band. They shouldn't have any mention of their "father's legacy", because they're just the offspring of 4 very talented musicians, and frankly that doesn't mean shit. There is no way they could continue anything they never had a hand in.

someonecompletelyrandom

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.