Hacker News Reader

Comment by sclangdon | Hacker News Reader

The question is, would the Stones be as popular today if they also split up after 7 years at the top? I'd argue they would since all of their best work (with the exception of Exile on Main St. - which was released in their 8th year) was released in this time.

Of course I'm not going to argue that anyone is as popular as the Beatles, but I'm pretty sure the Stones would also have had universal long lasting popularty if they had only been around for the same amount of time.

You also can't compare the wealth of McCartney to Jagger. Firstly, McCartney had a very successful solo career after the Beatles, during which time he released way more albums than the Stones in the same time period and did his own share of touring. Secondly, McCartney owns a significant music publishing catalogue and has other business ventures.

View on HN

> You also can't compare the wealth of McCartney to Jagger. Firstly[...]

I'd say firstly because even if they had 100% comparable careers comparing the current net worth of two people makes no sense when you're trying to establish what was a more "successful" approach in terms of earned income.

Maybe Jagger made way more money than McCartney and just spent it all on private jets, gambling etc., while McCartney invested it.

Or the question is, would the Stones be as popular if Mick Jagger was shot in 1980?

I don’t get how this is a fair comparison. The Beatles could hardly still be playing.

The Beatles broke up a full ten years before John Lennon was shot. That only cemented their fame, it didn't do much to create it nor did it do anything for the band while they were active.

Plenty of bands from then have toured with original members of a couple replacements years after they initially broke up. The Rolling Stones, for instance have changed much of their line-up. Pink Floyd is another example.

What does that have to do with the Beatles?

If John Lennon had not been killed, the Beatles could have toured in the 80s, 90s, 2000s, 2010’s by reuniting or replacing a different member or two. Many other bands of that era have broken up and then reunited to tour.

I had the impression most of their fame came from the fact that they are the oldest rock band alive.

I can base this only on my father's anecdotes as a guitar player from that time, but he told me that the musical complexity and chord progressions used in the Beatles' songs were significantly different than the music he had heard from other bands of the time. I'm not sure if one would say "mindblowing", but they were the kind of musician that inspired other musicians, not merely audiences. [According to my father, at least]

You take that back!

Oh, is there an older rock band?

GP is arguing that their fame is derived from attributes other than their age, not the fact that they are indeed the oldest rockers around

Reply on news.ycombinator.com