I think this is an unfair comparison. The band was already established at this point and the biggest thing in the world. Those people would have gone no matter which Beatle was absent. Beatlemania would have still happened to some extent because the band had Paul and John. Those two were going to make it no matter who you put with them. Ringo played his part though as the warmest, most accessible member and he was flat out a better drummer than Pete period. How would Pete's inferior skill and brooding demeanor work? Not sure.
I hear the 60's thing all the time too. Why didn't any of the other bands like the Kinks, Who, and Stones reach the height of the Beatles? Had to be more to it then just the era.
Have to agree with Todd here
I think its eminently possible for a band/act to become as big as the Beatles, they just have to be good enough and have that x factor (good songs helps too)
ABBA nearly did it in the 70's with great songs, a new sound and humongous success world wide, they just couldnt change with the times (The fabs did) and got stuck in a groove, then decline and acrimonious split .
Michael Jackson, also in the 70's wasnt to far away in terms of record sales either.
The 3 bands mentioned had huge success, 2 of them still do but in the end they didnt have the talent of John & Paul when it came to commercial writing and therefore appeal.......maybe if Ray Davies had been in the same band as Pete Townsend, who knows
I think its the case (my opinion) that talent like J & P only comes along very very rarely , other bands were great, but those 2 were phenomenal.
As for decades obviously when you grew up has the main bearing, I know plenty of younger than me music fans who would say The Smiths/Morrisey & The Stone Roses were miles ahead of The Beatles..........were all slaves to what was the music scene when we were 18