Why did The Beatles broke up? theyre like the best band in the world!?
407514
It was a mixture of things. First off, they were managing themselves. 1967, Brian Epstein, the Beatles manager had passed away from a drug overdose. Another thing was that George had been doing his own thing and didn't really think that Lennon and McCartney were putting on a fair share of his music. Since Brian Epstein died, according to John Lennon, Paul was trying to emerge as the leader of Beatles. Another thing is they they pretty much lived in the studio. Sometimes, they had to bring in different people to play (Eric Clapton, Billy Preston) to ease the tension in the studio. The Yoko Ono thing was just the tip of the iceberg. She would be there with John all of the time. They even rolled her in on a hospital bed. So if you lock four people in a studio plus George Martin, plus the engineer, plus the studio staff, plus Yoko Ono (towards the end) for 2-3 years straight and then add on to it the crowd of fans outside the studio, you would go mad too.
235751
They started out much like a garage band in 1959-60, and originally called themselves the Quarryment, playing mostly in nightclubs in Berlin and Hamburg, Germany. In 1961 they changed thier name to the Beatles and started getting more popular in their own country. In 1963, Ed Sullivan presented them to America and the rest is history. They offically broke up in 1970, getting back together to produce one last album in 1971, that being Abbey Road I believe.
550759
The Beatles' achievements and contributions to popular music, and indeed international youth culture, were profound and wide-ranging. Their early original material fused elements of early American rock 'n roll, pop, and R&B into a new form of popular rock 'n roll, almost single-handedly kick-starting the British Invasion, laying the groundwork for the rock culture of the 1960s, and establishing the prototype for the self-contained rock group.\n\nThroughout their career, The Beatles balanced their huge popularity with increasingly experimental and boundary-pushing music that took cues from eclectic sources like folk, R&B, soul, music hall, classical, electronic, and Indian music while exploiting increasingly sophisticated technology and innovative recording techniques.\n\nIn this way, they helped pioneer more advanced, multi-layered arrangements in both rock and pop and were instrumental in the development of some of 1960s rock's dominant styles, such as folk-rock and psychedelia. As songwriters, they were among the most influential and harmonically sophisticated of the era, helping to push rock beyond its early blues and R&B forms and into more expansive territory. Critical evaluation of The Beatles legacy demonstrates that they "introduced more innovations into popular music than any other rock band of the 20th century".\n\nLennon is conventionally portrayed as having played the major role in steering The Beatles towards psychedelia (Rain and Tomorrow Never Knows from 1966, and Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, Strawberry Fields Forever and I Am the Walrus from 1967). Again following the lead set by Bob Dylan, Lennon renewed his interest in rootsy forms towards the close of The Beatles' career (e.g. Yer Blues from 1968 and Don't Let Me Down from 1969).\n\nPaul McCartney is usually cast as the group's romantic balladeer, and he displays a singular ear for melody and an arguably unrivalled facility for writing classic pop songs in a wide range of genres, ranking alongside Irving Berlin, Cole Porter and the Gershwin brothers as one of the greatest popular song writers of the 20th century. However, in recent years since the deaths of Lennon and Harrison, he has insisted in a number of media interviews that he was far more involved in the London avant garde scene than was Lennon, and that he was in some respects the more "experimental" of the two.\n\nBeginning with his evocative but understated use of a string quartet on Yesterday (1965), McCartney pioneered a modern form of art song, exemplified by the double-quartet string arrangement on Eleanor Rigby (1966), Here, There and Everywhere (1966) and She's Leaving Home (1967). He also created many of the tape loops used on Tomorrow Never Knows and experimented with musique concrete techniques and electronic instruments, as well as creating many experimental audiovisual works. His interest in the music of Bach led him to use a piccolo trumpet in his arrangement of Penny Lane and, although the Mellotron at the start of Strawberry Fields Forever belonged to Lennon, it was McCartney who played it.\n\nMcCartney retained his affection for the driving R&B of Little Richard in a series of songs Lennon dubbed "potboilers", from I Saw Her Standing There (1963) to Lady Madonna (1968). Helter Skelter (1968), arguably an early heavy metal song, is also a McCartney composition. McCartney's lyrical style evolved a more detached, literary stance than in the increasingly personal and confessional work of Lennon, and Lennon was reported to have become more critical of McCartney's writing in the mid-Sixties.\n\nIn 1965 Harrison broke new ground in pop by playing an Indian sitar on Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown). His long collaboration with Sri Ravi Shankar, a famous Hindustani Musician, influenced several of his compositions, some of which were based on Hindustani forms — most notably Love You To (1966), Within You Without You
486535
Anissia B, you are an ignorant dolt. Without the Beatles, half of music out today would not even exist. Like them or not (you have to like them) they made an incredible contribution to music as a whole. By saying they suck, you are just stepping forward and saying "Hello. I know nothing about music and like to watch MTV. Let's go to Abercrombie and buy pre-ripped jeans for $150.00. *Giggle*"\n\nThink before you talk and you won't look so stupid.
884497
The bestest band in the world
1179732
O EM GEE! They broke up?!!! When?! What happened? I missed this. Please tell me. And I guess assuming that I didn't even know that, I sure as heck wouldn't know if he had a new one. I would say no. But that's just me. \n\nGod bless...
928830
I used to love them!  I haven't heard about them in forever!  And apparently they did break up...so sad....\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBMak
870623
They broke up...they all have new bands too...Mark and Travis have a new band called "Plus 44" and Tom has a band called "Angels and Airwaves" which had really good music if you like blink 182 i suggest listening to a few songs by "Angels and Airwaves"
1045330
The Beatles...hands down! If they hadn't done half of the stuff they did in the studio, music would not be where it is today!!
485498
The Beatles.  Everyone has a favorite Beatles song.
606026
THEY ARE THE BESTEST BAND EVER. THYE HAVE AWESOME SONGS, GREAT LYRICS, AND THEY HAVE A HOTT LEAD SINGER AND GUITARIST. WHAT'S NOT TO LIKE? THEY ARE SO COOL AND HAVE A GREAT SOUND. THEY ARE GOING TO BE AROUND AWHILE. IF YOU WANT TO SEE THERE NEW VIDEO - BUT IT'S BETTER IF YOU DO - GO TO http://jillanne84.buzznet.com/user/video/play/?p=1 - IT IS THE LAST ONE ON THE LIST TO THE RIGHT
421332
they all took drugs!!!! but the beatles took the time to coordinate their outfits and hair and all of that. it is just all about the image that they projected. the beatles went for the jugular of the us teens, and they got it! through the teen population they swept the country like wildfire. the stones had it a bit harder because they were bad asses from the start. but look at them now... still touring and being the stones. half of the beatles are dead, and only mc cartney is doing anything.... wel at least I have not heard of ringo doing much of anything. what it all comes down to is that the beatles wrapped themselves in pretty packaging and later came out of their boxes, whereas the stones were the stones from day one, no appologies
1152194
How can you seriously compare two bands that are so different? I mean, as far as "better" goes the obvious answer would be CSNY (they didn't call them "The American Beatles" for nothing!) but I prefer CSN without Neil Young, because Neil Young is totally the odd man out in that group. He's much better on his own, which is why he only gives CSNY half a--ed filler material. \nBut the facts are irrelevant, really. Somebody earlier asked a question of "Who's better: Beatles or Oasis?" and there's no comparison. Same thing here. I mean, love 'em or hate 'em, CSN/CSNY will go down as one of the most successful bands in history. Their first two albums are revered classics. Can you honestly say the same about the Goo Goo Dolls? They're ok at what they do, sure, but the comparison is like apples and oranges. Except I don't think the Goo Goo Dolls have fried their brains with cocaine like CSN did! They called those guys "The Frozen Noses" for a REASON...
435878
I think he would still be pretty popular even if he wasn't with the beatles. So many people loved his music when he wasn't with them, so why wouldn't they like it if he never was with them!?!?!?
635722
Definitely the Beatles. When they first came from England, they were nothing more than a boy band of their time. No difference between them and the Backstreet Boys. The Beatles get credit for helping build rock music in the US, when they really founded pop music.
437219
Pete best  was the original drummer in the Beatles group. They got rid of him before they became famous and got ringo starr in.
1085285
They're not broken up. They're currently recording the next album. I would expect it to be out by Christmas, but I haven't seen any potential release dates listed yet.