What if the Beatles hadn't broken up in 1970? I can think of two scenarios, being either flat out staying together, or perhaps the OTL 1970 split just being a short break before they reconcile and come back in 1971 or something.
WI: The Beatles Stay Together?
- Thread starter Emperor Norton I
- Start date
- Status
I love the Beatles. They inspired me to spend the rest of my life writing songs in my bedroom, forming various wee hairy bands and playing at folk clubs etc. So they changed my life in some ways.
All those great solo songs like Imagine and Band on the Run are put together onto 14 track Beatles albums and much of the more forgettable material is left out, so they remain greater than the sum of their parts. Maybe only one new album per year would become the new 1970s era output. Also in the earyl 1970's they adopt Paul's idea for going on the road to play a series of low key anonymous gigs at colleges etc. This even becomes accepted Beatles practice in between the big tours of the late 1970's and 1980s.
They appear on programmes like the Old Grey Whistle test to promote their new singles as well as Top of the Pops and maybe even 1980s programmes like the Tube. John doesn't move to New York and perhaps doesn't get shot by a born again Christian psychopath.
We can now enjoy dozens more Beatles albums than in OTL and possibly even the odd new film/tour documentary etc.
I would like to live in that alternate universe possibly.
All those great solo songs like Imagine and Band on the Run are put together onto 14 track Beatles albums and much of the more forgettable material is left out, so they remain greater than the sum of their parts. Maybe only one new album per year would become the new 1970s era output. Also in the earyl 1970's they adopt Paul's idea for going on the road to play a series of low key anonymous gigs at colleges etc. This even becomes accepted Beatles practice in between the big tours of the late 1970's and 1980s.
They appear on programmes like the Old Grey Whistle test to promote their new singles as well as Top of the Pops and maybe even 1980s programmes like the Tube. John doesn't move to New York and perhaps doesn't get shot by a born again Christian psychopath.
We can now enjoy dozens more Beatles albums than in OTL and possibly even the odd new film/tour documentary etc.
I would like to live in that alternate universe possibly.
They'd have eventually split or had a different line up by now-after all George has passed away. I think there were far too many 'creative disagreements' between John and Paul for them to continue in any form. Yup a shame....just think though if they had stuck together perhaps Paul never pens the Frog chorus?
Ha ha, you'd have to ask Lewis Carrol about that. I still think they'd have made some really good albums if they'd stayed together instead of IMHO the patchy solo albums that they put out in OTL.
So says the drummer.
Anyway, I don't think that they'd really be staying together long term - and if they did, they'd be more remembered as aging classic rockers rather than legends.
Precisely. And while lineup changes can happen, it won't be the Beatles without all four.
Cuāuhtemōc
Banned
I suppose John Lennon fangirls will still blame Yoko for switching the lineup which is gonna happen most likely.
Interesting question EN1 and I've no real comments because I simply haven't read enough about the Beatles. I just want to pop in and ask the same question I did in the earlier Bob Dylan thread.
Can anyone suggest a good bio of the group? Not a John, Paul, George, and/or Ringo bio, but a bio of the group as a whole.
Thanks in advance!
Can anyone suggest a good bio of the group? Not a John, Paul, George, and/or Ringo bio, but a bio of the group as a whole.
Thanks in advance!
I would suggest shout by Hunter Davies I think as a biography. Also Revolution in the Head is a great reference that catalogues every recording session and explains a lot about the creative processes that led to the songs we know and love. Overrated bunch? You're joking Ringo. (I think he is).
I think as long as John isn't murdered in 1980 they could have stayed together successfully and with enough creative ouput to remain valid for many more years than they did. Their output would have been better as a group. In fact there was a good Beatles alt timeline recently where they evolve as two rival groups. Think that one's been abandoned though.
I think as long as John isn't murdered in 1980 they could have stayed together successfully and with enough creative ouput to remain valid for many more years than they did. Their output would have been better as a group. In fact there was a good Beatles alt timeline recently where they evolve as two rival groups. Think that one's been abandoned though.
Bah!
"Abbey Road" is the orgasm of the 1960's.
I agree on the creative disagreements. That's why I think this scenario is frankly harder than people give it credit for being. The 1971 reunion scenario is up there because of that. I'll elaborate if I have time.
And if Paul never pens that...I won't be too sad.^_^
*Tears away name*
Get outta mah house, Sa'id Mohammed.
(For the post break up, "You Never Give Me Your Money"
That's the Alternate Beatles who never did drugs, and thus never evolved beyond 1964.You might end up with this!!
Last edited:
Now, here it is. The difficulty of the situation in keeping the Beatles together.
By the time of the Beatles breakup, the band had become something of a super group. Each member contributed, could be rather independent, and more or less brimmed with ideas for songs. The problem then becomes the fact that each member had more song ideas than could be put on a Beatles album. For example, George Harrison had songs written as far back as 1966 by the time he released "All Things Must Pass", because Lennon/McCartney shot down his attempts to get many on the albums. Harrison would be lucky to have 2 songs per LP. I think Harrison's feeling like he was neglected and belittled helped break up the band.
There's also the matter of John, George & Ringo vs. Paul. McCartney, after Epstein's death, had tried to take over in his stead. The rest of the Beatles came to resent this. Indeed, if you look at the post-Epstein/last year of Epstein phase: Paul proposed the "Sgt. Pepper's" concept, Paul proposed the "Magical Mystery Tour" film, and Paul proposed "Get Back" which would later become known as "Let It Be", Paul begged the rest of the members not to leave when many of them wanted to before the break up(Lennon talked for some time of leaving), and Paul wanted his father in law to become new manager. Paul thought he was keeping the band together, the rest thought he was just being big ego-ed.
There was also the matter of the Beatles post-India. In India, the band has been taught a philosophy of individuality. At this time, the one person who was trying to keep them together as a unit, Brian Epstein, died. I think that contributed to them wanting to go independent together with Apple, and later independent individually with the break up.
And overall, I think they were tired and perhaps bored. They'd seen each other almost every day for almost a decade. And things like touring and being regimented by management, etc all seemed to take their toll. And so the Beatles slowly but surely did things to slow down, such as when they stopped touring.
That is why it is difficult for the Beatles to stay together. Individually, they'd become so independent, and in that independence grew perhaps too big for the group and what could be done in a group.
Now, that being said, there are underlying things that would help the Beatles stay together. They seemed to, at least when they got along, get along rather well. Their egos weren't huge/detrimentally big like in other "super groups" (one of the things that leads to super groups breaking up after maybe one or two albums most of the time). They seemed to work better in collaboration, especially Lennon and McCartney. I think McCartney especially needed someone to "compete" against and bounce ideas off of to bring out his best. Lennon, I think, needed that collaboration to keep from getting too straight rocker. And it's not as if the Beatles reunited with other Beatles from time to time. Ringo jammed with the Plastic Ono Band as drummer for a while, one Beatle would play instruments on another's album from time to time, Lennon and McCartney reunited for a jam session in '74, etc.
By the time of the Beatles breakup, the band had become something of a super group. Each member contributed, could be rather independent, and more or less brimmed with ideas for songs. The problem then becomes the fact that each member had more song ideas than could be put on a Beatles album. For example, George Harrison had songs written as far back as 1966 by the time he released "All Things Must Pass", because Lennon/McCartney shot down his attempts to get many on the albums. Harrison would be lucky to have 2 songs per LP. I think Harrison's feeling like he was neglected and belittled helped break up the band.
There's also the matter of John, George & Ringo vs. Paul. McCartney, after Epstein's death, had tried to take over in his stead. The rest of the Beatles came to resent this. Indeed, if you look at the post-Epstein/last year of Epstein phase: Paul proposed the "Sgt. Pepper's" concept, Paul proposed the "Magical Mystery Tour" film, and Paul proposed "Get Back" which would later become known as "Let It Be", Paul begged the rest of the members not to leave when many of them wanted to before the break up(Lennon talked for some time of leaving), and Paul wanted his father in law to become new manager. Paul thought he was keeping the band together, the rest thought he was just being big ego-ed.
There was also the matter of the Beatles post-India. In India, the band has been taught a philosophy of individuality. At this time, the one person who was trying to keep them together as a unit, Brian Epstein, died. I think that contributed to them wanting to go independent together with Apple, and later independent individually with the break up.
And overall, I think they were tired and perhaps bored. They'd seen each other almost every day for almost a decade. And things like touring and being regimented by management, etc all seemed to take their toll. And so the Beatles slowly but surely did things to slow down, such as when they stopped touring.
That is why it is difficult for the Beatles to stay together. Individually, they'd become so independent, and in that independence grew perhaps too big for the group and what could be done in a group.
Now, that being said, there are underlying things that would help the Beatles stay together. They seemed to, at least when they got along, get along rather well. Their egos weren't huge/detrimentally big like in other "super groups" (one of the things that leads to super groups breaking up after maybe one or two albums most of the time). They seemed to work better in collaboration, especially Lennon and McCartney. I think McCartney especially needed someone to "compete" against and bounce ideas off of to bring out his best. Lennon, I think, needed that collaboration to keep from getting too straight rocker. And it's not as if the Beatles reunited with other Beatles from time to time. Ringo jammed with the Plastic Ono Band as drummer for a while, one Beatle would play instruments on another's album from time to time, Lennon and McCartney reunited for a jam session in '74, etc.
Constantinople
Banned
Implied rolling stones.
I find that so annoying. The Rolling Stones are legends as far as Im concerned, and having seem them a few times, they're still pretty amazing.
I have to agree, the Stones may not be regarded as being on the cutting edge of rock music these days but they continue to produce music of a very high quality and remain an impressive creative force while other artistes simply come and are gone with the next fad. Same goes for Dylan and others of that era.
I'd say that the Beatles would continue to create noteable new music that would be a big part of our culture long after 1970 if they could have overcome their difficulties. Every new Beatles album would be a huge event. Perhaps their solo efforts around the time of the split, especially George's All Things Must Pass clear the air in some ways and they realise more clearly the value of each member's work. George might become an equal partner in future, or at least make a bigger songwriting contribution and Ringo gets the children's songs.
If John manages not to get murdered then they could even continue right up until George's death from natural causes many years later. Even then, perhaps a new lead guitarist could fill his boots. Probably someone of similar vintage. From the 1980's on Beatles albums might be produced every few years rather than twice a year as in the 1960s or annually as in the 1970s. By the time of the posthumous Beatle George album it's maybe their first release in nearly 5 years, apart from their continued solo projects.
Does John remain an activist for peace and social justice in the 80s and 90s?
We've got the red and blue compilation albums of the 1960s material, which tracks would have been well known Beatles hits on the 70s and 80s and so on equivalents?
I'd say that the Beatles would continue to create noteable new music that would be a big part of our culture long after 1970 if they could have overcome their difficulties. Every new Beatles album would be a huge event. Perhaps their solo efforts around the time of the split, especially George's All Things Must Pass clear the air in some ways and they realise more clearly the value of each member's work. George might become an equal partner in future, or at least make a bigger songwriting contribution and Ringo gets the children's songs.
If John manages not to get murdered then they could even continue right up until George's death from natural causes many years later. Even then, perhaps a new lead guitarist could fill his boots. Probably someone of similar vintage. From the 1980's on Beatles albums might be produced every few years rather than twice a year as in the 1960s or annually as in the 1970s. By the time of the posthumous Beatle George album it's maybe their first release in nearly 5 years, apart from their continued solo projects.
Does John remain an activist for peace and social justice in the 80s and 90s?
We've got the red and blue compilation albums of the 1960s material, which tracks would have been well known Beatles hits on the 70s and 80s and so on equivalents?
Once again I take the opportunity to sneak a mention of my own songwriting efforts here on www.reverbnation.com/billypryce.
Please have a browse and a listen, you're interest keeps me current in their chart. If you like any of them they're free to download.
Please have a browse and a listen, you're interest keeps me current in their chart. If you like any of them they're free to download.
- Status