The Beatles kind of sucked at the beginning of their career. That they became as good as they did was a shot in the dark— not the ability to divide which ones would become great. The are so many incredibly talented musicians in the world— if anybody could consistently choose the winners, record company finances would be way different. Of the bands that get signed to record labels, the percentage that become the "it" acts is microscopic.
People always say this about the Beatles but it’s fucking ridiculous. I’m a musician and have spent a lot of my life around musicians including very very famous ones and including ones who are very famous now but were not when I met them.
I’ve also met hundreds of musicians who practice and try for years and are basically the same at the end as when they start.
The difference between being OK and quite good indeed can be bridged with practice.
The difference between being a quite good and polished songwriter and being Paul McCartney involves being fucking born Paul McCartney.
Also “they sucked at the beginning bf their career?” What in the the fuck are you talking about? They had a hit with Love Me Do when their ages ranged from 20-23 years old. That’s not fast enough for you?
Paul Simon had his first hit single as a teenager. Robert Plant was 19 when he recorded Zeppelin I.
No amount of practice alone is going to to get you to that level of talent.
Anyone implying otherwise 1) is trying to sell you books and 2) has spent zero actual time as a musician and around musicians and songwriters.
> The are so many incredibly talented musicians in the world
If there are so many, then they aren't incredible.
It takes a lot more than talent to be successful in music. More than musical talent, too. One has to also be able to create catchy tunes, play them, fit in with your band, pick the right look for the band, the right name, packaging, etc. etc. etc. I recommend reading up on what Brian Epstein did for them.
The songs of the Beatles (and Michael Jackson) are consistently better than the songs of their contemporaries.
> the percentage that become the "it" acts is microscopic
Are the 99% simply not that good? I enjoy music from all kinds of bands, but the quantity and consistent high quality of the Beatles' and Jackson's work are standouts.
No. The music industry in the US has never been a meritocracy. There are tons of artists who record labels deem worthy enough to sign but they never promote. A whole lot of it comes down to luck.
It seems like a lot of your viewpoint is based on am assumed consistency that doesn't exist.
