Anonymous
8/21/2025, 4:47:58 AM
No.127464377
>>127464383
>>127464477
Aren't the Beatles basically the first supergroup? I know they each got famous for being a Beatle but all four of them were just that great individually that you'd think they were
Anonymous
8/21/2025, 4:48:43 AM
No.127464383
>>127464386
>>127464377 (OP)
i remember when /mu/ used to hate this band. better times.
Anonymous
8/21/2025, 4:48:58 AM
No.127464386
>>127464383
Not even a minute later..
Anonymous
8/21/2025, 4:52:17 AM
No.127464418
>>127464445
That’s a cool thought, and you’re right that each Beatle had enough individual talent to seem “supergroup-worthy.” But technically, the Beatles aren’t considered the first *supergroup* because the term usually means a band formed from musicians who were already famous from other bands or solo careers. For example, Cream (with Eric Clapton, Ginger Baker, and Jack Bruce) in 1966 is often cited as the first true rock “supergroup,” since each member had established fame beforehand.
The Beatles, on the other hand, became famous *together* — they were four very talented guys who all hit their peak in the same band rather than coming into it with big reputations. What makes them unique is that after the Beatles broke up, each member (Lennon, McCartney, Harrison, Starr) went on to have a successful solo career — so in hindsight it *feels* like a supergroup because every piece of the puzzle stood on its own.
Anonymous
8/21/2025, 4:58:48 AM
No.127464477
>>127464377 (OP)
I think you mean the first super boy band
