Challenge: Beatles in the 1980s

[metalstar316]

With a musical output up until Let it be that is the same as OTL, how can we extend the Fab Four's career into the 1980s or beyond? What great music they might have written in the 1970s? Pick any POD and give it any date, but keep their music the same up until after Let it be and/or Abbey Road. Might we see Imagine, Band on the Run, It Don't Come Easy or My Sweet Lord as band efforts?

[flippikat]

Originally Posted by metalstar316

With a musical output up until Let it be that is the same as OTL, how can we extend the Fab Four's career into the 1980s or beyond? What great music they might have written in the 1970s? Pick any POD and give it any date, but keep their music the same up until after Let it be and/or Abbey Road. Might we see Imagine, Band on the Run, It Don't Come Easy or My Sweet Lord as band efforts?

Four points come to mind...

1) Management
You'd need to sort out the management vacuum left by Brian Epstein's death - FAST. I doubt that Brian would have been able to keep them together if he'd lived (possibly too biased/smitten towards John).
I dunno who'd be a good candidate for that - but they need to be in place by the end of 1967 to avoid the whole Apple fiasco.
Whoever gets this job needs to have a strong will, but be fair and inpartial for ALL the Beatles. Tall order.. and I struggle to think of who could do this. (lots of egos involved here)

2) Songwriting volumes
How to deal with the mass of songs being written - With John and Paul churning out tons of ideas in 1968-9, and George becoming more and more prolific, how can one band keep up with all that creativity? Does this require a series of double-albums? More frequent single albums? Side-projects? (Hey, maybe a Paul/Ringo album..?)

3) Live performances
After they retired from touring the technology continued to improve - amplification, security, lighting.. not to mention the audiences actually starting to LISTEN rather than just scream. How would a live show by the Beatles in 1968 look? Would it still be stripped back to just the 4 of them.. or would they get hired hands & friends to embelish the live sound? Bands like the Mothers of Invention and Chicago were going down this path, so it's not totally out of the question.

4) Yoko
I saved this to last, because even with Yoko out of the picture, any of the other points above are still tough questions.
Still - how to accomodate John's partnership with Yoko alongside membership in the Beatles? (Hmm.. perhaps setting out a calendar with time assigned for solo & Beatles projects)
I refer to point 1. Strong, impartial management is needed. Any takers?

[Grey Wolf]

I had a dream the other night that Paul McCartney was assassinated in 1980, and John Lennon went on to front U2...

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

[metalstar316]

Digging up my own thread from its sweet repose.....

Two possible PODs: have Yoko Ono killed in the Tokyo Fire bombing in WW2. Second, have Brian Epstein survive. What happens then is anyone's guess.

[Emperor Norton I]

Yoko did not split up the Beatles. Stop blaming her. Its an old and unfair stereotype by fans seeking a Judas to blame for the Crucifixion. They were just drifting apart and finally snapped totally. John and Paul had been the leaders, but had begun to squabble, and George was coming into his own right (and to a lesser but still prominent degree, Ringo). Likewise, Paul took over the de facto reigns after Epstein believing he was helping, but the others and John resented it and thought he was just being power hungry.

[metalstar316]

You're right, Emperor. You can't blame Yoko for breaking up the band. But her presence did nothing to help a bad situation.

[flippikat]

Originally Posted by Emperor Norton I

Yoko did not split up the Beatles. Stop blaming her. Its an old and unfair stereotype by fans seeking a Judas to blame for the Crucifixion. They were just drifting apart and finally snapped totally. John and Paul had been the leaders, but had begun to squabble, and George was coming into his own right (and to a lesser but still prominent degree, Ringo). Likewise, Paul took over the de facto reigns after Epstein believing he was helping, but the others and John resented it and thought he was just being power hungry.

Exactly!

Also, there was no precident for a band to manage solo projects AND group work.

Maybe the best solution might have been to just get in some top-line management in 1968, and decide to devote 1969 to solo projects.
I'm not sure whether EMI would've gone with it though - After all, the Beatles had just renewed their contract in '66 or '67...

(If EMI really wants a new Beatles album in 1969, they could go trawling the archives - like how The Who did "Odds & Sods" in the early 1970s!)

But yeah, a year to cool-off.. I think George would definately benefit from it too - and if his 1969 solo album includes "Something", "All Things Must Pass", "For You Blue" etc then his hand will certainly be strengthened when they re-unite.

[Northstar]

Originally Posted by metalstar316

What great music they might have written in the 1970s?

What great music did they write OTL?

[Solomaxwell6]

Originally Posted by Northstar

What great music did they write OTL?

1) Smoke a lot of weed
2) Put on Abbey Road
3) Thank me later. ;-)


First step optional. Illicit drugs only enhance the experience; the majority of their music can be enjoyed without them.

[Emperor Norton I]

Originally Posted by metalstar316

You're right, Emperor. You can't blame Yoko for breaking up the band. But her presence did nothing to help a bad situation.

It did nothing to anything except make Lennon happy.

Originally Posted by Northstar

What great music did they write OTL?

Evey song they ever did that was intended to be serious (which negates Wild Honey Pie and Rocky Raccoon among a few others).

[Solomaxwell6]

Originally Posted by Emperor Norton I

It did nothing to anything except make Lennon happy.

The other three didn't like her (except maybe Ringo... I heard he's a genuinely nice guy and did a lot towards keeping the band together as long as it did). The band would've fallen apart anyway, but she exacerbated an already bad situation. That's the main thing. Get Yoko out of the picture, and you buy more time for the band.

Also, her art is awful. >_>

[catboy637]

Originally Posted by Northstar

What great music did they write OTL?

You just made your worst enemy.

[Emperor Norton I]

Originally Posted by Solomaxwell6

The other three didn't like her (except maybe Ringo... I heard he's a genuinely nice guy and did a lot towards keeping the band together as long as it did). The band would've fallen apart anyway, but she exacerbated an already bad situation. That's the main thing. Get Yoko out of the picture, and you buy more time for the band.

Also, her art is awful. >_>

Them not liking her would not have become an issue (or perhaps even come into existence at all), if they weren't already on the brink anyway. Yoko did nothing but become just another party in the split.

[Chuck Mandus]

Originally Posted by Grey Wolf

I had a dream the other night that Paul McCartney was assassinated in 1980, and John Lennon went on to front U2...

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

I had a dream once where I somehow came in possession of an album they (The Beatles) made in secret together in 1977 called "Superblaster."

[Chuck Mandus]

Originally Posted by flippikat

Four points come to mind...

1) Management
You'd need to sort out the management vacuum left by Brian Epstein's death - FAST. I doubt that Brian would have been able to keep them together if he'd lived (possibly too biased/smitten towards John).
I dunno who'd be a good candidate for that - but they need to be in place by the end of 1967 to avoid the whole Apple fiasco.
Whoever gets this job needs to have a strong will, but be fair and inpartial for ALL the Beatles. Tall order.. and I struggle to think of who could do this. (lots of egos involved here)

2) Songwriting volumes
How to deal with the mass of songs being written - With John and Paul churning out tons of ideas in 1968-9, and George becoming more and more prolific, how can one band keep up with all that creativity? Does this require a series of double-albums? More frequent single albums? Side-projects? (Hey, maybe a Paul/Ringo album..?)

3) Live performances
After they retired from touring the technology continued to improve - amplification, security, lighting.. not to mention the audiences actually starting to LISTEN rather than just scream. How would a live show by the Beatles in 1968 look? Would it still be stripped back to just the 4 of them.. or would they get hired hands & friends to embelish the live sound? Bands like the Mothers of Invention and Chicago were going down this path, so it's not totally out of the question.

4) Yoko
I saved this to last, because even with Yoko out of the picture, any of the other points above are still tough questions.
Still - how to accomodate John's partnership with Yoko alongside membership in the Beatles? (Hmm.. perhaps setting out a calendar with time assigned for solo & Beatles projects)
I refer to point 1. Strong, impartial management is needed. Any takers?

I'm not too sure on 2 and 3, I have to think on that. 4, I'll deal with first, I do contend that maybe blaming the breakup on Yoko is wrong but I contend her presence wasn't a great help. That leaves 1, do you think that Phil Spector could have stepped in although Spector is a bit way out there himself?

[Xen]

Originally Posted by Emperor Norton I

Yoko did not split up the Beatles. Stop blaming her. Its an old and unfair stereotype by fans seeking a Judas to blame for the Crucifixion. They were just drifting apart and finally snapped totally. John and Paul had been the leaders, but had begun to squabble, and George was coming into his own right (and to a lesser but still prominent degree, Ringo). Likewise, Paul took over the de facto reigns after Epstein believing he was helping, but the others and John resented it and thought he was just being power hungry.

Yoko is unfairly blamed alot, but you can not deny her hand in this (although Im sure it was not her intent). Yoko's mere presence in the recording studio helped send the group down a spiral it could not return from, merely because the other three resented someone else not part of the group in the studio. John also lost interest in the group to spend time with Yoko. It is perhaps more fair to blame John, but since people liked John they have to blame someone they didn't like, hence Yoko. We don't have to drop her altogether, just get her out of the studio, and get John focused on making music rather than smoking pot and fucking Yoko all the damn time. Now if he remains with Cynthia, then he loses interest in his family (as he did in OTL with her and Julian) and continues to concentrate on the Beatles.

As someone said above, management, if the group brought on Allen Klein earlier, or perhaps even long time associate Peter Brown. This will help a great deal, even if they decide to do an Apple Corps type of project it will be ran a lot smarter.

Flippikat also mentioned volume of music they were outputting at this time, it is very easy to see the group releasing a few double albums in the early 1970's. That won't be an issue, this is also where an Apple Corps situation might work for the Fab Four, they write songs, another band (ie Bad Finger) records them.

[flippikat]

Here's some potential PODs that might be good to throw into the mix:

* John's mother Julia isn't run-down & killed (effects on John's character & the relationship with Yoko...)

* Brian Epstein takes a harder line with EMI 1966 re-negotiating the Beatles recording contract, gaining some huge concessions & freedoms from EMI, including a far bigger royalty rate.

* The Sgt Pepper movie is made - plans were for a "long-form" video version of the album, but it never got to shooting - what if this had happened instead of Magical Mystery Tour?

[Mark E.]

I think the best chance would be for the Beatles to break up as on OTL and reconvene around 1983 or 1984, assuming the survival of John Lennon.

Part of the issue was the popular music environment of 1970. Had they kept going without interruption, they could have faced a decline in popularity. Instead, by spring 1971, all four members had separate songs on the charts. The Top 40 was still a very dominant force in music a the time. Groups could only stay on top for so many years without interruption. After all, the Rolling Stones had no hits on the charts from mid-1969 to mid-1971, and only one song from 1975-1977.

By the mid eighties, classic rock would dominate the charts until the extinction of [traditional] Top 40 around 1989-1992. In those years, the Beatles could have done better.