I find it implausible that 4 school chums from Liverpool turned out to be musical geniuses. It's much more plausible that they were reasonably smart, really loved music, and worked very hard learning to play. Once one learns to play well, moving into composition is a natural step.
It's unsurprising that the Beatles' music they created as a group was better than what they did afterwards (much better). After all, if you're John Lennon, who is going to tell you your latest song sux, and btw, here's an improvement to it? Nobody but a fellow Beatle.
every exceptionally talented person/group is unlikely to show up in the exact circumstances that they do. In a thunderstorm, each individual tree has a very low chance of being struck by lightning, but nobody is surprised that some tree is struck by lightning.
Of course, to realize their potential they also had to work hard, and collaborating with other exceptionally talented artists also no doubt helped.
I would also push back on the idea that the music they created as a group was much better than what came after. George, in particular, released arguably his best work (all things must pass) after the breakup, and both john and paul released great albums afterward (imagine, ram)
One argument for genius is the scene where McCartney literally creates Get Back out of thin air in a few minutes time. It's magical to watch. I don't even like the song.
That said: All Things Must Pass is unquestionably George's best work and the overall best Beatle solo album. But I'd argue that every other solo album was considerably less interesting than, say, Abbey Road or Revolver. Imagine has two classics, some interesting stuff, and some filler.
Unquestionably the best Beatles solo album? Ummm, no. Plastic Ono Band is the best solo album, and the second is Ram. All Things Must Pass is somewhere up there, but most of it is boring filler.
all things must pass is weird, because if it were a double album that just elided the 3rd disc there would be basically no filler on it at all, but that last third of the album is just not up to par with the rest of it at all. I think if you're willing to ignore that disc you can make the argument that it is the best post-beatles solo album. Those other two albums are also great and definitely in the conversation
none of the post-beatles albums are as iconic as the big beatles albums, but i think at least all things must pass and ram hold up very well compared to the classic beatles albums. I'm not gonna sit here and tell you either is better than abbey road or revolver (which are two of my favorite albums ever) but they are in the neighborhood
It was a confluence of events but the main thing was playing clubs in Germany, basically playing covers for something like 50+ hours a week on and off for two years. And they were playing late at night to drunken crowds, so they could experiment and goof off too. That's how John, Paul, and George developed their impeccable harmonies, tight playing, and a massive repertoire of hits.
That's just an absolutely crazy amount of hours to be performing in such a short period of time, and nearly impossible for most musicians to actually get paid for (outside of relentless busking).
I think very few bands since have worked as hard as the Beatles. Their 2 years in Hamburg playing long hours in night clubs daily is something few bands can do (or would want to), and that forged them into something special (not just in technical musicmanship). The Beatles never shied from putting in the work.
It wasn't 2 full years, but... certainly, multiple stints of 8 hour sets for weeks on end - it's basically a full time job.
Other 'factors of the time'. They wanted to play rock and roll. There just wasn't THAT MUCH of it. In 1961... there were a few years of the genre, several albums by their heroes, but... it's not enough to play and attract people in bars for weeks on end. There were other factors too, but that constraint was one, that helped push them to expand a bit beyond just 'rock' stuff (some earlier standards, etc) to help differentiate themselves from other bands (and eventually self-composing as well).
By coming back from... IIRC, their second or third Hamburg stint, they had somewhere around 800 hours of playing together as a band. That just wasn't a thing (yet). I mean - not even most of their heroes/idols didn't have that much stage time as a single unit. The "self-contained rock band" really wasn't a "thing" yet.
I've been in bands, and we were never even in a position where we'd be able to play 6-7 hrs a night for weeks on end. I'm sure no one would have wanted to anyway (like you say).
Depends on what you mean by "like the Beatles." If you mean popularity, it's because there's only so much room culturally for artists to reach that level of popularity. They are essentially the mascot for Rock and Roll music and there's no changing that.
> So why aren’t there a bunch of bands like the Beatles?
"Like the Beatles" how?
They were at the right place at the right time (that is, the time where pop music was starting, hence you had less granularity), and singing in the "correct" language to get a massive audience.
Further than that, they were lucky to not get broken up or faded out early.
This in no way diminishes their work, but it was a hole in one.
In a way it's kinda of a Fermi paradox of bands, except there's no paradox because nowadays there are multiple bands (at smaller niches) with several very competent musicians playing. Or "manufacturing" bands.
Is Max Martin a lesser musician than Paul or John? Probably not really and I don't like most of his songs.
It seems you're looking at the probability the wrong way. There are thousands of chums all over the world making music. Some had more talent and were therefore more likely to become successful.
It's unsurprising that the Beatles' music they created as a group was better than what they did afterwards (much better). After all, if you're John Lennon, who is going to tell you your latest song sux, and btw, here's an improvement to it? Nobody but a fellow Beatle.