[Bork]

Prepare for some rambling, although hopefully in the end, with a bit of good will, you'll see what I'm getting at.

Assume for a moment that The Beatles had indeed disbanded after Let It Be (or Abbey Road, depending on how you write your history). They'd gone their separate ways, as they indeed did, and on December 8 1980 Mark Chapman was waiting at the entrance of The Dakota and put four bullets into the back of John Lennon. Not so hard to imagine yet as that was indeed what happened. Imagine further, though, that a year later the remaining members of the band reunited, signed on Loudon Wainwright III (or whoever else) as a replacement singer and spent the following thirty years releasing mediocre music. The occasional hit single here and there, but all in all uninspirational, bland, and nothing worthy of standing alongside all those great albums they put together during their heyday (if you're not a fan of The Beatles please refrain from stating that point, I bet you still see what I'm getting at).

Here's the question then. Would that alternative history have smeared their reputation to such an extent that they would no longer be considered the world's greatest pop/rock band ever, or would they still be held in as high regard as they are?

[EDIT: Just to put it into an imaginable perspective. Let's assume that they during the period from 1981 until present (past the death of George Harrison who they replaced with Trevor Bolder who, although a bassist in current history, decided to change his alignment for this opportunity. After all, it's The Beatles, got to do something less predictable than just enlisting the average great guitar picker) released 24 albums, all of them less than great.]

[Norman Bates]

[SquishypuffDave]

I judge bands according to their best output, so no.

[Facetious]

I don't find The Rolling Stones' reputation being destroyed because of their less acclaimed albums. If you make a bad album, it mostly gets forgotten quickly. Maybe if you're the type of person who judges a band's "greatness" by how great each of their albums was, then your opinion may get changed. But I don't think most people are like that. Unless the bad stuff gets really really REALLY famous as "that bad album which that otherwise good band made", it will be forgotten REALLY quickly. Even then, it may be forgotten. The album "Yellow Submarine" is not mentioned that much in Beatles discussions. Most people don't even know that "Squeeze" exists. Many people think of The Stooges' output as a trilogy of awesome albums, not as a foursome which included a bad album "The Weirdness". If you ask most people what they know about The Clash's work, they will probably think of their early records. What about The Kinks? Do people even know they released much stuff other than their five or six most famous albums? Are "Unconditionally Guaranteed" and "Bluejeans & Moonbeams" known that much? And Dylan's bad albums? Most people would judge most artists by what good they did, not by what bad they did. And when you've got legendary artists like The Velvet Underground, The Beatles, Bob Dylan, The Rolling Stones, The Kinks, etc. it's almost impossible.

And I didn't even mention The Beach Boys.

[Facetious]

Plus, most people probably wouldn't even consider the later work (especially if it was not good) as real Beatles work. That tends to happen when there's this "famous line-up" which becomes associated with the band whenever somebody mentions it. If this line-up changes too much, then.........well, it isn't that legendary band which was there before. Pink Floyd is an example that survived through line-up changes, but after "The Wall"........

And then there's the great comeback too (i. e. Magic Band, Dylan).

The point is, people often choose to ignore bad work, especially if a band was good at the start, and later made that work.

[Mind Movie]

I don't care who make the albums that I like, and have no opinions towards artists greatness.

[gussteivi]

[gussteivi]

[Hayden]

No.

Bands can have flops.

That happens.

Just because The Beatles, Radiohead, Pink Floyd, Bob Dylan, Nirvana, The Flaming Lips, etc...had bad albums once in a while, doesn't part the fact that they're amazing bands.

But, say an artists discography is 2 albums. And one is pathetic...It might be a different story.
_________________
Doubles & Conch

[Facetious]