Link to tweet

I've heard of phonation exercises, though I've never done them.
I've never even heard of straw phonation before.

of the videos about it that I saw recommended on Reddit. It's supposed to help with speaking as well as singing. And there are so many other videos on this technique, as you'll see here:
https://youtube.com/results?sp=mAEA&search_query=straw+phonation

I just watched Yesterday yesterday (yuk, yuk) on one of the cable movie channels I get. The Beatles are not the only thing absent from that alternate universe. During one of Jack Malik's several internet searches Oasis was another band he was unable to find any mention of. There were no cigarettes in that universe (one HUGE improvement over our universe), no Coca-Cola (maybe that was an improvement, too), no Beatles, no Oasis ...

I frankly wouldn't miss Oasis, but I absolutely WOULD miss the Beatles. They are the BEST band EVER, nobody else is even close.

— Ron

and love some. I prefer Paul's songs to John's.

But, I always have to go Beatles because I feel they were sine qua non.
There would have been other heavy rock bands break big if Zeppelin never existed.
I'm not sure the music industry fleshes out the way it did if no Beatles.

it's impossible to know if guitar rock might still have ruled popular music without the Beatles. My guess is that it would have, but it might've taken months or a year longer. The Beatles had a great manager.

But they.were still part of Merseybeat, after all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beat_music

That article mentions Nederbeat, the Dutch music scene at the same time, the scene Golden Earring emerged from.

It wasn't as if there weren't already a lot of bands moving in the same direction as the Beatles. But the Beatles catching fire first made it easier for similar bands, and musical directions they took made it easier for others to follow.

It was the way the Beatles leveraged that popularity to be allowed to call their own shots.
No record company exec would have greenlighted Sgt. Pepper. No exec would have approved of a classical trumpet solo on Lenny Lane; a string quartet on Elanor Rigby.
They forced the record company to accept whatever it is they decided to do.
That was a monumental industry change.
And, to use your example, the other Merseybeat bands didn't have the musical range the Beatles could exploit.
Four guys, four singers, 3 guitarists, 2 bass players & 2 guys that could play piano.
That was potential those other Mersey bands did not have.
Finally, the Beatles did not sit on their laurels when they were the biggest thing on earth.
They willingly & willfully went away from the formula that got them there. Not sure how many 60s acts could have, then would have done that.

George Martin. And the initial success and later clout in the music industry were due to both Brian Epstein and Martin.

I did some googling yesterday, and it's common to see the Beatles, Led Zeppelin, the Rolling Stones and Pink Floyd listed as the four greatest rock bands (and sometimes with Led Zeppelin at the top; it's much rarer to see the Stones or Pink Floyd ahead of the Beatles and Zeppelin).

Of those four, the Beatles' appearance, industry clout and sound were shaped much, much more by their manager and producer than was true of the other three bands. I believe you could change managers and producers for the other three without changing their classic sound and the likely impact of their music. I'm not at all sure the same is true of the Beatles.

Disagree on Epstein.
Martin was utterly brilliant and has such an open mind that they & he were up for anything.
Epstein was an image guy. He had almost nothing to do with their sound, aside from knowing what good was & pushing them to sharpen everything and behave like professionals.

didn't say he impacted their sound.