WI: John Lennon Doesn't Meet Yoko
- Thread starter Han
- Start date
The answer is tragic.
Due to his use of L.S.D. John Lennon was moving down the same road as Syd Barrett when Yoko turned him on to heroin. If not for this development Lennon would likely finished out the sixties as a recluse. Although he would likely have lived to old age he would be very unlikely to have continued writing or performing music.
Due to his use of L.S.D. John Lennon was moving down the same road as Syd Barrett when Yoko turned him on to heroin. If not for this development Lennon would likely finished out the sixties as a recluse. Although he would likely have lived to old age he would be very unlikely to have continued writing or performing music.
I can't imagine that the Beatles would stay together much longer than they did OTL. The Let It Be sessions would've been hell for the Beatles, with or without Yoko. I could see them staying together until maybe 1971 or 1972. Yoko Ono may have been a factor that helped break up the Beatles, but I really doubt that Yoko singlehandedly brought the Beatles down.
The major resource that I use for all things Lennon is Lennon: The Definitive Biography, by Ray Coleman (which actually might be biased). Anyway, the book seems to imply that Yoko really was John's true love, another half of him. So with Yoko out of the picture, is John Lennon going to succumb to depression, or will he stay with Cynthia and live happily ever after? On the plus side, John and Julian might grow close, and Julian might actually get something in John's will.
The major resource that I use for all things Lennon is Lennon: The Definitive Biography, by Ray Coleman (which actually might be biased
). Anyway, the book seems to imply that Yoko really was John's true love, another half of him. So with Yoko out of the picture, is John Lennon going to succumb to depression, or will he stay with Cynthia and live happily ever after? On the plus side, John and Julian might grow close, and Julian might actually get something in John's will.I believe Yoko's role in the breakup of the Beatles is much overstated. Ultimately it was the business conflicts caused by the failure of Apple, more than anything else, that tore them apart.
Shackel
Banned
If the Beatles went with Microsoft, what would've happened? Longer Beatles? Ringo NOT in Thomas the Tank Engine? D:
I tend to agree with this. By 1969, George was in a place where he had no place to grow as an artist and with or without Yoko, John would still have probably treated him no differently, which tended towards condescension and that was only ONE of the problems in the band.
Ringo quit during the White Album sessions. George quit during Get Back/Let It Be and both had to be talked back into the band both times.
Then there were the issues of management/representation that, frankly, I don't know the full ins and outs of, but were, from what I understand, the proverbial final nail.
The only thing that changes in all of this is what was mentioned above, in that Lennon either becomes an acid casualty and recluse or stops doing acid but loses interest in music (at least for a while) and does something else, quitting the band himself in '69 or '70.
I mean, the Beatles had something to do with Apple, so what's to say they couldn't have had something to do with Microsoft?
In a way, Yoko coming into the picture was the best thing that happened to the Beatles in their later years. Before John met her, he was terribly depressed, because he felt that Paul was writing better songs and having more creative ideas and input. He was taking a dangerous amount of LSD and he was growing very lazy as a songwriter.
Enter Yoko. Her experience in the avant-garde world inspired John to open up his musical horizons and become the truly revolutionary artist that he's remembered as today. No Yoko, and we miss out on "Dear Prudence", "Happiness is a Warm Gun", "Julia", "Revolution", "Come Together", "Because"...the list goes on! Sure, she increased some tensions (and yes, the sonic abortion that is "Revolution #9" is partly her fault), but there was a LOT more going on with the Beatles that led to the break-up, like their disagreements over Allen Klein, George continually feeling snubbed as a songwriter, and shifting musical styles.
I say without Yoko, the Beatles don't EVEN make it to 1970 before John just completely loses it somehow. Even if he doesn't, the group devolves into a McCartney-led affair, which will no doubt start to piss George off. In any case, the Beatles are still out of the picture by the early 1970s.
Enter Yoko. Her experience in the avant-garde world inspired John to open up his musical horizons and become the truly revolutionary artist that he's remembered as today. No Yoko, and we miss out on "Dear Prudence", "Happiness is a Warm Gun", "Julia", "Revolution", "Come Together", "Because"...the list goes on! Sure, she increased some tensions (and yes, the sonic abortion that is "Revolution #9" is partly her fault), but there was a LOT more going on with the Beatles that led to the break-up, like their disagreements over Allen Klein, George continually feeling snubbed as a songwriter, and shifting musical styles.
I say without Yoko, the Beatles don't EVEN make it to 1970 before John just completely loses it somehow. Even if he doesn't, the group devolves into a McCartney-led affair, which will no doubt start to piss George off. In any case, the Beatles are still out of the picture by the early 1970s.
Last edited:
I think 'truly revolutionary' is overstating it a bit. Paul was years ahead of John on music, art, plays, etc. While John was Suburban Husband with Cyn, Paul was Single Man About Town in London with Jane. In fact, Paul met Yoko first, at an art happening. The gallery John met Yoko in? The Indica, opened by Jane's brother, partly funded by Paul.
That said, I think the Beatles break up with or without Yoko. They were growing as people, and growing apart. They weren't kids living a dream anymore, they were adults with their own interests.
Xen
Banned
This is more true than many Beatle fans like to acknowledge. Yes Yoko did play a part in it, but it wasn't as big as people believe. She was more than less a scapegoat used by the other three, and Lennon's respect for his bandmates was shown to be poor by not standing by their agreement of only the quartet being allowed in the studio.
If the Beatles partnership lasts it won't be much longer. The longest it is probable to last in 1976 when their contract expired and that is likely to be John records a song, sends it to Paul, Paul records his part forwards it to George, George does his part and sends it to Ringo, Ringo does his thing and passes it to George Martin who has the uneviable task of making something out of it.
Notice I said the "artist he's REMEMBERED as". I know Paul was interested in avant-garde art and music before John, and might have even been the catalyst for John's forays into that territory. But that's not what Paul is remembered for today. Nobody marched on the Capitol demanding an end to the Vietnam War by singing "Maybe I'm Amazed". They were singing "Give Peace a Chance".
Maybe "revolutionary" is the wrong word. John was more of an activist than Paul, how's that?
I'll give you "activist," although his activism was a bit calculated.
John was accused by his political contemporaries of only being in it for the publicity. After all, what was "Power to the People" but a late-in-the-game attempt at another march chant??!