<![CDATA[Only really 6 years????]]>Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — The Beatles

Hawks23 — 12 years ago(March 09, 2014 05:05 AM)

Serious I can't believe their Beatle career lasted really from '63 to '69 to me it felt like 15 years. So many physical changes as well as musical changes. Candlestick park to Let it be was only 2.5 years!!! Do you believe that?To me these days 6 years goes like the wind.

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/topic/151690/only-really-6-yearsRSS for NodeWed, 13 May 2026 06:37:41 GMTMon, 20 Apr 2026 21:44:12 GMT60<![CDATA[Reply to Only really 6 years???? on Mon, 20 Apr 2026 21:44:21 GMT]]>IMDb User

This message has been deleted.

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1289817https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1289817Mon, 20 Apr 2026 21:44:21 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Only really 6 years???? on Mon, 20 Apr 2026 21:44:19 GMT]]>rs114-1 — 11 years ago(March 01, 2015 08:24 AM)

It was a time of many changes, and the Beatles were both a cause and effect of it. It was also a time of intense creativity for the Beatles, and looking back, it's no surprise that their breakup was sudden and nasty.

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1289816https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1289816Mon, 20 Apr 2026 21:44:19 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Only really 6 years???? on Mon, 20 Apr 2026 21:44:18 GMT]]>Picnic10 — 9 years ago(August 12, 2016 06:59 AM)

That ignores all the preparation in terms of learning how their personalities / favoured influences complemented and contrasted , go-titans. If Lennon and McCartney had met in 62 instead of 57 then they wouldn't have that shared schoolboyish spirit of being the clever underdogs, that 'we'll show them that Liverpool can be cleverer than London'.

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1289815https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1289815Mon, 20 Apr 2026 21:44:18 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Only really 6 years???? on Mon, 20 Apr 2026 21:44:16 GMT]]>go_titans — 10 years ago(April 10, 2015 08:38 AM)

The OP's point is still valid. The Beatles achieved all of what they did between 63 and 69. Ringo joining in 62 or John and Paul meeting in 56 has got nothing to do with it.

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1289814https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1289814Mon, 20 Apr 2026 21:44:16 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Only really 6 years???? on Mon, 20 Apr 2026 21:44:15 GMT]]>hecklejecklelove-665-268403 — 12 years ago(March 30, 2014 04:31 AM)

Really, for me, The Beatles werent really THE Beatles until Ringo joined in 1962. Thats when the band became The Beatles IMHO. Yep they had some, well actually quite a few recordings before 1962, but that was kind of a prologue to The Beatles. Without Ringo, they just werent THE Beatles.
So for me, The Beatles career together as a singular group was eight years in length.
hjl

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1289813https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1289813Mon, 20 Apr 2026 21:44:15 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Only really 6 years???? on Mon, 20 Apr 2026 21:44:13 GMT]]>mcode518 — 12 years ago(March 16, 2014 08:22 AM)

It actually started back in 1957, when John formed the Quarrymen. Paul joined in July '57 and George joined in February '58. There were many name changes until they finally settled on the Beatles in 1960, while performing in Hamburg. Ringo joined in August 1962, replacing original drummer Pete Best. It was in 1963 that Beatlemania swept the UK.
Okay, well filibuster.

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1289812https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1289812Mon, 20 Apr 2026 21:44:13 GMT