Beatles WI: Paul Really Is Dead?

Most know the Paul is dead urban legend in varying levels of detail. The story goes something to the effect that in 1966 Paul McCartney, distraught over a recording session, stormed out of the studio and drove off, or that he was driving a girl home (Lovely Rita). Along the way, he got into a car accident ("He blew his mind out in a car,"; "I took her home, I nearly made it"), and was decapitated ("You were in a car crash, and you lost your hair"). The Beatles and their managers paid off the police to cover up the death, took the winner of a look alike contest (usually named Billy Shears, William Campbell, or William Shears Campbell), but were so distraught that they hid clues throughout their songs and in album art, and so forth. This would also explain the gap between recorded material during that time, and the revolutionary direction the band would take.

But what if Paul McCartney actually did die in a car crash in 1966? What would the Beatles actually do, and what would actually occur?
 
Most know the Paul is dead urban legend in varying levels of detail. The story goes something to the effect that in 1966 Paul McCartney, distraught over a recording session, stormed out of the studio and drove off, or that he was driving a girl home (Lovely Rita). Along the way, he got into a car accident ("He blew his mind out in a car,"; "I took her home, I nearly made it"), and was decapitated ("You were in a car crash, and you lost your hair"). The Beatles and their managers paid off the police to cover up the death, took the winner of a look alike contest (usually named Billy Shears, William Campbell, or William Shears Campbell), but were so distraught that they hid clues throughout their songs and in album art, and so forth. This would also explain the gap between recorded material during that time, and the revolutionary direction the band would take.

But what if Paul McCartney actually did die in a car crash in 1966? What would the Beatles actually do, and what would actually occur?

When in 1966? Assuming November 9th 1966 per rules of the urban legend I think Strawberry Fields Forever was already written, so that song would likely still be recorded at some point. Though I would imagine Lennon taking McCartney's death pretty hard, especially when we consider its an automobile accident, and therefore might resurrect memories of his mother's death all those years back. He could either react belligerently or quiet mournfully as he had when Sutcliffe and Epstein died historically. If we're lucky, Lennon doesn't want to deal with McCartney's death, so he gets to work to try to distract himself. Meanwhile, the reaction to McCartney's death will be hysterical. You'll hear an awful lot of talk about it being the end of the Beatles, and you'd likely get a contingent of fans with exactly that attitude, ie nothing after McCartney counts as being by the Beatles. There is a chance that the group would split up, but somehow I think they'd at least make an attempt to keep things together, however temporarily. Also, Lennon wrote some very good songs in late 1966-1967, but he was extraordinarily lazy during the time period, that's one of the reasons Paul ended up sort of taking over the group, so that puts a monkey wrench in things. I also think Revolver, being the last album featuring McCartney, probably goes back into the charts. a Yesterday single is re-released. I could imagine Lennon writing a song quiet similar to a Day in the Life about McCartney's death. A few songs might be recorded quickly, but I'd imagine a full album would take an awfully long period of time to put together. I don't think they'd spend much time recruiting a new member, I think the band probably gives bass duties to Klaus Voreman. Its debatable whether or not he actually gets to officially join the group or not

I know you want to know what happens if the death occurs in 1966, but in my opinion, if you want a McCartney death in a car related accident, there two time periods I can think of for an actual event that could be manipulated to produce that kind of result, neither of which happens to be in 1966. If I remember correctly, Paul was involved in a motorcycle accident in late 1965, it left him with a chipped tooth and a scarred lip. It might be a simple, if morbid matter to turn that into a fatal accident. If I remember correctly said accident occurred on December 26th 1965, less than a month after the release of Rubber Soul. If you think a reaction in late 1966 would get you hysteria imagine it happening a year earlier. (By late 66 the bands popularity was beginning to lessen. While Pepper did restore the groups popularity, such a restoration was not really expected at that time.)

The other event is based on something I've read, and it may be equally untrue as the whole death hoax itself. The event is not as well sourced as the motorcycle crash. Essentially, someone did crash Paul's car pretty badly on January 7th 1967 but Paul wasn't in the car at the time. So you could put McCartney in that car, and have a potentially fatal accident.

If the event occurs in January of 1967, the band has already been recording for a while, and you likely have about four songs more or less completed (or, at least takes which could reasonably be made into releasable material.) Strawberry Fields Forever, Penny Lane, When I'm 64, and Harrison's Only a Northern Song. That kind of situation makes the completion of an album, however long it ends up taking, a much easier endeavor than a late 1966 death would
 
The scenario is more to just see what would actually happen if the framework the legend works from actually happened, sans all the "clues" and conspiracy stuff that followed stuff. Certainly later or earlier could produce better scenarios for the remaining Beatles or their fame or work, but the point is more to create a real "Paul is Dead" in contrast to the elaborate conspiracy theory. Then again, there are segments of the mythos that say the accident was actually in 1965.

I don't think the band would necessarily break up, or if so if they'd go into solo careers following at least; Ringo and Harrison hadn't developed independence yet so it wasn't the same situation in the late 60's and 1970 when everyone had evolved to the point where they were a supergroup. Lennon could go solo since he was the leader of the Beatles essentially and had the star infrastructure, but Harrison and Ringo would probably not or suffer in their attempts if they did.
 
I think all three surviving members would face problematic circumstances.

Again, Lennon in 1967 was by all accounts extraordinarily lazy. And I say that as a fan of his. It'd be hard for him to put together a full album that year by himself. I think Strawberry Fields Forever is still recorded, not sure about the rest of his 1967 output. Of course, it's possible Paul's death will make Lennon more active, but I'm not so sure.

Harrison wasn't really in his own yet, I could see Ringo having some initial success as a kind of novelty thing, but nothing that could really be sustained. Ringo as a personality was pretty popular, but it'd be a challenge to translate that into a really successful post band career.

I do think if they stick together, it'd be Klaus Voreman working on the bass.
 
I think all three surviving members would face problematic circumstances.

Again, Lennon in 1967 was by all accounts extraordinarily lazy. And I say that as a fan of his. It'd be hard for him to put together a full album that year by himself. I think Strawberry Fields Forever is still recorded, not sure about the rest of his 1967 output. Of course, it's possible Paul's death will make Lennon more active, but I'm not so sure.

Harrison wasn't really in his own yet, I could see Ringo having some initial success as a kind of novelty thing, but nothing that could really be sustained. Ringo as a personality was pretty popular, but it'd be a challenge to translate that into a really successful post band career.

I do think if they stick together, it'd be Klaus Voreman working on the bass.


Lennon was always lazy, though, and by his own admittance. Harrison agreed, though he was evolving. So maybe he goes to join another group if the Beatles do break up in the end, and then goes solo when he develops. Ringo agreed, but I think he could just go that join another group route.

I can see them taking what material they have finished and releasing that in a finished album project.

But what becomes of the members and the cultural development without Sgt. Pepper's. Certainly they were already becoming more and more experimental and psychedelic, but Pepper's was Paul's idea.
 
Lennon was always lazy, though, and by his own admittance. Harrison agreed, though he was evolving. So maybe he goes to join another group if the Beatles do break up in the end, and then goes solo when he develops. Ringo agreed, but I think he could just go that join another group route.

I can see them taking what material they have finished and releasing that in a finished album project.

But what becomes of the members and the cultural development without Sgt. Pepper's. Certainly they were already becoming more and more experimental and psychedelic, but Pepper's was Paul's idea.

I was under the impression that Lennon was lazier in 67 than in any other time period, before or since, even if he was always lazy to some extent. But I might be wrong about that.

If the band manages to pull together an album, it'd probably be well received to an extent, but it's popularity and image would be closer to that of Revolver than OTL Pepper. The cultural ramifications of that are tougher to think of though.

I do wonder how long "Strawberry Fields Forever" (my name for a hypothetical Paulless 1967 Beatles album.) takes to complete
 
I was under the impression that Lennon was lazier in 67 than in any other time period, before or since, even if he was always lazy to some extent. But I might be wrong about that.

To my knowledge, Lennon was always notoriously lazy, and a few songs are based on that ("I'm Only Sleeping", "I'm So Tired", etc).

If the band manages to pull together an album, it'd probably be well received to an extent, but it's popularity and image would be closer to that of Revolver than OTL Pepper. The cultural ramifications of that are tougher to think of though.
There's a bit of a chicken egg things on whether the Beatles created the psychedelic craze or the craze was already in motion for the Beatles to do Sgt. Pepper's. I think there was enough material produced and the Beatles had already taken on a style that they'd have done a Psychedelic direction album next, but it may not have had the same impact minus the Paul material along with it and rushed. It also may not have been a concept album. And that's a big thing too; that the Beatles really popularized the Concept Album, and made the album have a story and meaning, and be art, rather than what it was before which was a few hit songs surrounded by fluff to finish out the song roster. Granted, Zappa had done the concept album before the Beatles and deserved credit.

I do wonder how long "Strawberry Fields Forever" (my name for a hypothetical Paulless 1967 Beatles album.) takes to complete
It depends on if it'd be a "Let It Be/Get Back Session" type attempt at getting everything of an abandoned project mixed together, or if the Beatles trudge on and maybe even produce more material never created in the OTL to fill the Paul void (new songs for the alternate Sgt. Pepper's).

If I can mention, in the urban legend, it is occasionally mentioned that the next album was supposed to be a non-psychedelic album called "Smile" (mixing up the Beatles and the unreleased Beach Boys psychedelic project), and that the new Paul was the reason for the direction change.
 
Last edited:
The direction of popular music was already well established by 1967. Without Paul, the Beatles might have remained a three-member group, accompanied by various back-up musicians. They may never have broken up, taking a popularity path similar to that of the Rolling Stones: go a year or so without an album, and then come back with a presence on the charts.
 
The direction of popular music was already well established by 1967. Without Paul, the Beatles might have remained a three-member group, accompanied by various back-up musicians. They may never have broken up, taking a popularity path similar to that of the Rolling Stones: go a year or so without an album, and then come back with a presence on the charts.

I just found out while looking at the wiki info on "Only a Northern Song" that Harrison had threatened to leave the group in 1966 following the Candlestick Park concert:

"As well as reflecting Harrison's dissatisfaction with Northern Songs, and its major shareholder Dick James in particular – "I was starting to get a bit of an idea that ... you'd only written half a song and he [James] would be trying to assign it"[4] – the song also suggests that, at this time, Harrison "had yet to recover his enthusiasm for being a Beatle",[2] Harrison having threatened to leave the group six months earlier, following their final live concert at Candlestick Park.[6]"

I think there's a good chance that the Beatles would break apart after that. Harrison was getting kept down pretty well and he didn't like that, and by 1966 was emerging as a creative force of his own. And I think the reaction would be that without McCartney, it wouldn't be the Beatles. Or maybe, in the wake of McCartney's death, Lennon could take Harrison on as the replacement for that void and keep him happy and everything afloat.

Speaking of that, however, there's a good chance that "Only a Northern Song" would get a release on the after-Paul album, though it's bitterness could keep it off on the other hand.
 
Paul really kept the Beatles together several times, through a George walkout, through a John walkout, even through a Ringo walkout. And if not for him, the thing would've spun out of control after Brian Epstein died in 1967.

Paul pretty much became a horse's ass pushing them to do music because nobody else would. John was too lazy, as alluded to, and too interested in drugs. George was too into Eastern mysticism and felt unappreciated anyway. Ringo would play anytime, anywhere, but even he couldn't hold it all together.

No Paul means no stabilizing force. George walks out in 1968 (latest), the band falls apart, period.
 
Paul really kept the Beatles together several times, through a George walkout, through a John walkout, even through a Ringo walkout. And if not for him, the thing would've spun out of control after Brian Epstein died in 1967.

Paul pretty much became a horse's ass pushing them to do music because nobody else would. John was too lazy, as alluded to, and too interested in drugs. George was too into Eastern mysticism and felt unappreciated anyway. Ringo would play anytime, anywhere, but even he couldn't hold it all together.

No Paul means no stabilizing force. George walks out in 1968 (latest), the band falls apart, period.
I understand where you may be coming from, but I disagree with the direction. Paul's trying to take over in the group was a heavy part of what began to drive a wedge in between the Beatles. Certainly, there were other factors (they were drifting in direction, each had come into his own so much they were essentially a supergroup by the end and when everyone is an independent artist it doesn't work, each were more mature and less accepting of eachother's quirks, and Yoko played a role though not the major most), but that was the biggie. The other's didn't like that; Paul may have had good intentions, but the Beatles were a Democracy and the other's didn't like Paul acting like the manager, and suspicion grew with stuff like him trying to make his father-in-law the new manager.

John was lazy, but he always was, and in the early days if there was one to be named leader, it would have been John. Lazy isn't the same thing as comatose, and the Beatles obviously did well. George my have been interested in Indian culture, but I don't see the problem; George became a creative force on par with both Lennon and McCartney, and his solo career is perhaps on of the best sounding and "Beatle-y" sounding of them all, and his introducing the sitar into popular music was revolutionary.

The Beatles perhaps needed a stabilizing force, but it would have been in the form of a manager like Epstein. Paul was not that, and his attempts to be a pseudo-manager did more harm than good. And I'd like to point out members leaving or threatening too wasn't uncommon at the end. John had left and varying points at the end, as had George, and I think Ringo may have.
 
I understand where you may be coming from, but I disagree with the direction. Paul's trying to take over in the group was a heavy part of what began to drive a wedge in between the Beatles. Certainly, there were other factors (they were drifting in direction, each had come into his own so much they were essentially a supergroup by the end and when everyone is an independent artist it doesn't work, each were more mature and less accepting of eachother's quirks, and Yoko played a role though not the major most), but that was the biggie. The other's didn't like that; Paul may have had good intentions, but the Beatles were a Democracy and the other's didn't like Paul acting like the manager, and suspicion grew with stuff like him trying to make his father-in-law the new manager.

John was lazy, but he always was, and in the early days if there was one to be named leader, it would have been John. Lazy isn't the same thing as comatose, and the Beatles obviously did well. George my have been interested in Indian culture, but I don't see the problem; George became a creative force on par with both Lennon and McCartney, and his solo career is perhaps on of the best sounding and "Beatle-y" sounding of them all, and his introducing the sitar into popular music was revolutionary.

The Beatles perhaps needed a stabilizing force, but it would have been in the form of a manager like Epstein. Paul was not that, and his attempts to be a pseudo-manager did more harm than good. And I'd like to point out members leaving or threatening too wasn't uncommon at the end. John had left and varying points at the end, as had George, and I think Ringo may have.

I must not have made my point.

I don't think Paul taking over was the real problem. Growing apart was.

John could've taken over, if he wanted, but he didn't. George couldn't be bothered (Indian religion isn't the 'problem', just that he was busy with other things ... he could've become a born-again Christian, and would've been the same thing. He was interested in something other than the Beatles at the time).

Yes, George's stuff was great - but it wasn't being given the same attention by the group as Lennon and McCartney's stuff ... and the band was never a democracy. No. 1 was John (when he wanted it), No. 1A was Paul. They overruled any more George content in the albums.

Paul, as overbearing as he was, was responsible for pulling them into the studio numerous times after 1967. 'Sgt. Pepper' was largely his idea. The 'Magical Mystery Tour' movie was his idea. Filming for 'Get Back/Let It Be' was his idea. Getting back in the studio for 'Abbey Road' was his idea. Not all great ideas, but without him, the rest of the group doesn't get the push it needed.

Allen Klein might have been brought in sooner without Paul, true, but the rest of the group grew to hate him (check out John's "Steel and Glass" or George's outtake "Beware of ABKCO"). But John would sooner put up with Klein than admit Paul was right.

I know John, George and Ringo had left at various points, but I also know Paul cajoled them back. With no Paul ...

I don't agree that Paul stepping in may have done more harm than good (John himself reflected later that Paul's actions may have kept the group together). I stand by my assertion that had he not been around to step in, nobody would've even TRIED. Hence, an early breakup.
 
It's true that Lennon wanted to leave the group as early as 1966, and while I hadn't heard about Harrison wanting to leave after candlestick park, it's a story I can accept. But still, I'm not sure the band would break up the moment Paul is buried. I could buy them trying to keep things together for a period of time, though I can concede that without Paul the break might come sooner than September 1969 or April of 1970 depending on whether you count Lennon's final break with the group as the end or not. The only issue I have with your statement is the idea that there would be a immediate split. I think they'd stick around for at least one album, maybe two.
 
Last edited:
I didn't mean to imply that the break would be immediate, but I think it would be sooner rather than later.

I think they'd be lucky to still be together after 1968.
 
I've thought of something. The Beatles did a Christmas record for their fan club at the end of every year. 1963, 1964, 1965, linked respectably there.

What becomes of the record to be for 1966 after a year of certainly profound sadness and uncertainty and, to another point, what becomes of the Beatles Fan Club in general?
 
Top