The ShadowMusic Web Community

I was just thinking about the Shadows and the Beatles and their respective ages. Since the Shadows achieved prominence a few years before the Beatles, I always assumed that the Shadows were at least a couple of years older. However, that is not the case at all; on the average, as a group, they are the same age! Individually, I was surprised to discover, for example, that John Lennon was older than Cliff, as is Ringo Starr . . . In fact, if Jet had been just one year younger, the Shadows would have been younger on the average than the Beatles!!

Hank 1941
Bruce 1941
Jet 1939
Tony 1943
average = 1941

George 1943
John 1940
Paul 1941
Ringo 1940
average = 1941

I was really surprised to discover this !!

Why were The Shadows successful ahead of The Beatles?

The main reason is London.

Hank and Bruce's decision in March 1958 to stay in London and seek their fortune after The Railroaders failed to win at the Granada, Edmonton was the critical factor. The UK as a whole was still struggling to recover from the Second World War but London, as the capital city, was recovering faster. The newspapers and the record companies were concentrated in London and Tommy Steele had already demonstrated that a few appearances at the 2is coffee bar plus a publicist's cooked-up story about being a 'deb's delight' could make you a star in a matter of months.

On 5th October 1958 Bruce and Hank became professional musicians, travelling the country with a rising pop star who, after that tour, would never again be less than top of the bill. In Liverpool, the (part-time) Quarrymen were still morphing into the Silver Beatles and John Lennon was at a Liverpool art college.

It took a lot of hard slogging and a pretty rough life in Hamburg before The Beatles finally made that visit to George Martin in London that changed their fortunes.

Ray

Hank and Bruce decided to pursue their full-time musical career ambitions when both just 16 years old, achieving the beginnings of lasting success in virtually six months. Really, without Cliff, it could never have happened in that way... the Beatles' apprenticeship took a little longer, with a greater struggle to secure that vital major recording contract.

Bill

Bojan wrote:I was just thinking about the Shadows and the Beatles and their respective ages. Since the Shadows achieved prominence a few years before the Beatles, I always assumed that the Shadows were at least a couple of years older. However, that is not the case at all; on the average, as a group, they are the same age! Individually, I was surprised to discover, for example, that John Lennon was older than Cliff, as is Ringo Starr . . . In fact, if Jet had been just one year younger, the Shadows would have been younger on the average than the Beatles!!

Hank 1941
Bruce 1941
Jet 1939
Tony 1943
average = 1941

George 1943
John 1940
Paul 1941
Ringo 1940
average = 1941

I was really surprised to discover this !!

It should be Paul 1942

Paul Childs wrote:

Bojan wrote:I was just thinking about the Shadows and the Beatles and their respective ages. Since the Shadows achieved prominence a few years before the Beatles, I always assumed that the Shadows were at least a couple of years older. However, that is not the case at all; on the average, as a group, they are the same age! Individually, I was surprised to discover, for example, that John Lennon was older than Cliff, as is Ringo Starr . . . In fact, if Jet had been just one year younger, the Shadows would have been younger on the average than the Beatles!!

Hank 1941
Bruce 1941
Jet 1939
Tony 1943
average = 1941

George 1943
John 1940
Paul 1941
Ringo 1940
average = 1941

I was really surprised to discover this !!

It should be Paul 1942

So it should !!