Does history make more sense in reverse?

Imagine a world where the Beatles are the world's foremost cover band. That's the advantage of history in reverse.
Conquer Club, a free online multiplayer variation of a popular world domination board game.
https://beta.conquerclub.com/forum/
https://beta.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=238996
DoomYoshi wrote:Imagine a world where the Beatles are the world's foremost cover band. That's the advantage of history in reverse.
jimboston wrote:DoomYoshi wrote:Imagine a world where the Beatles are the world's foremost cover band. That's the advantage of history in reverse.
I mean weren’t they the world’s foremost cover band for like the first 3-5 years?
Dukasaur wrote:jimboston wrote:DoomYoshi wrote:Imagine a world where the Beatles are the world's foremost cover band. That's the advantage of history in reverse.
I mean weren’t they the world’s foremost cover band for like the first 3-5 years?
Pretty much.
And they leveraged the popularity from those years into being powerful enough to do what they wanted and experiment later.
jimboston wrote:Dukasaur wrote:jimboston wrote:DoomYoshi wrote:Imagine a world where the Beatles are the world's foremost cover band. That's the advantage of history in reverse.
I mean weren’t they the world’s foremost cover band for like the first 3-5 years?
Pretty much.
And they leveraged the popularity from those years into being powerful enough to do what they wanted and experiment later.
Their only plans were to make a few pounds and shag some birds.
mookiemcgee wrote:
Is that a bad thing? I don't personally believe 'power hungry world dominating drive' makes for greatness in the musical world. It kinda does today, but that's part of why music from the 60-70s is so much better than the most popular music today.
Led Zeppelin > Drake
Diana Ross > Beyonce
Willy Nelson > Blake Shelton