AHC: Billy Joel in the Beatles

Title says it all. How do we get an uber talented kid from Long Island in the British sensation?

Figure POD should be in 67/68 range. I figure "Beatles go on longer, Joel joins as John replacement" is easiest but have your way with it
 

shiftygiant

Gone Fishin'
Title says it all. How do we get an uber talented kid from Long Island in the British sensation?

With great difficultly. John Lennon's contribution to the group cannon't be understated, of course, and without him the Beatles just ins't The Beatles.

Best case scenario: The Beatles becomes Pink Floyd. They're the same band, yes, however the music style has changed with the lineup.

Worst case scenario: Nuclear holocaust destroys all life on earth

Relevant worst case scenario: Billy Joel replacing John causes a massive rift in the fans, and the internal squabbling ultimately ends the band. Joel and Ringo start their own thing, Paul and George go off on Solo's.

I imagine that Joel would be bought in to help at live shows and eventually worm his way into the band. But I feel the PoD at 1967/68 would be too late to save the band, and after John leaves, I sincerely doubt the Beatles would still be The Beatles. Also, during this period he would have been dedicated to The Hassles and recording the bands second album. Would he drop it to become the 'American Beatle'?
 
Last edited:
Beatles go on longer, Jeff Lynne replaces George Harrison when Harrison goes solo in 1971 and Joel joins as John replacement in 1973. Beatles make a great comeback album in 1975 and then devolve into disco and crap by 1979. By then, they change the drummer every album and have a career resurgence in the 1980s when they join the arena rock bandwagon ala Bad Company.
 
Beatles go on longer, Jeff Lynne replaces George Harrison when Harrison goes solo in 1971 and Joel joins as John replacement in 1973. Beatles make a great comeback album in 1975 and then devolve into disco and crap by 1979. By then, they change the drummer every album and have a career resurgence in the 1980s when they join the arena rock bandwagon ala Bad Company.

I can see that except I think Ringo was most loyal to the idea of The Beatles. I could see something like this if only because I think if there's one person that could restore the even balance of songwriting between just two artists in the Beatles (such as the early Beatles, namely A Hard Day's Nights), it could be Billy Joel and Paul McCartney.

I have to wonder what would still legitimately be "The Beatles" if you only have two of the big four guys left, but this might just be from OTL eyes.
 
Also, during this period he would have been dedicated to The Hassles and recording the bands second album. Would he drop it to become the 'American Beatle'?

The rest of your post raised very valid points, but I wanted to address this. I would imagine there isn't anything he wouldn't do to join the Beatles, considering he evidently only pursued rock and roll because of seeing them on the Ed Sullivan Show.

Plus it's also The Beatles. I would imagine most would drop whatever they were doing if invited.
 

Heavy

Banned
At most, I could see him as a featured artist credited on a single release (like the great Billy Preston on "Get Back" - I'm pretty sure this is the only time an artist from outside the band was given any kind billing for their performance with the group, and Preston was somebody they'd been friends with for most of the 1960s).

However, Billy Joel didn't have a hit until 1973 and even then didn't break through until 1977, having spent the intervening four years hiding out in Los Angeles while his lawyers tried to get him out of his rubbish management contract. He'd done sessions in New York and he'd recorded one album with the Hassles by the end of 1967; maybe if that album had turned out to be a monster he could've done something with the Beatles, but the time had more or less passed for the music they were playing by the time they showed up. The balance of power had shifted away from London and New York and now tilted toward Los Angeles and San Francisco; everybody was into psychedelic bullshit after Monterey.

In any case, the Beatles without John, Paul, George or Ringo wouldn't be the Beatles. If Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr teamed up with, I don't know, Noel Gallagher and Paul Weller and toured as the Beatles today, it wouldn't be the Beatles at all, would it? It's because the Beatles was and is John, Paul, George and Ringo.
 
I can see that except I think Ringo was most loyal to the idea of The Beatles. I could see something like this if only because I think if there's one person that could restore the even balance of songwriting between just two artists in the Beatles (such as the early Beatles, namely A Hard Day's Nights), it could be Billy Joel and Paul McCartney.

I have to wonder what would still legitimately be "The Beatles" if you only have two of the big four guys left, but this might just be from OTL eyes.

Well, the changing of drummers is a bit of a joke of what happened to big acts (Black Sabbath, Kiss, etc) during the era which this "Beatles lasting longer" timeline would be part of.

I imagine that Solo-Paul Beatles making hits would be considered a legit band (like Dio-led Black Sabbath, late 80s Bad Company, etcetera) by virtue of the hits. Being that ELO and Billy Joel came up with solid stuff in the 70s their inclusion in the Beatles would be a travesty of history but solid businesswise in the 70s, as they would crank out hits and keep the Beatles name alive.

Ironically, ATL, the Beatles would not be the second biggest selling band albumwise in the 2000s as they were OTL. Killing the legacy by burning out kills the post Anthology Beatles resurgence.
 
I imagine that Solo-Paul Beatles making hits would be considered a legit band (like Dio-led Black Sabbath, late 80s Bad Company, etcetera) by virtue of the hits. Being that ELO and Billy Joel came up with solid stuff in the 70s their inclusion in the Beatles would be a travesty of history but solid businesswise in the 70s, as they would crank out hits and keep the Beatles name alive.

I would have to wonder if a Lynne-Joel-McCartney trio doesn't outdo the 60s Beatles in terms of sheer quality. Perhaps McCartney-Joel replaces and outshines Lennon-McCartney? ;)
 
Top