Can the Beatles keep going after 1970?

I'm no expert on the band, but I do think the Beatles offer a unique oppurtunity from an Alt History perspective. They were already more or less three solo artists doing their own thing by 1968, so any hypothetical 70s Beatles albums wouldn't likely sound too different from a playlist of songs from their various solo albums. A full on breakup doesn't seem inevitable either. Getting all four Beatles to stick around would be a major challenge yes, but continuing on as a trio, most likely with John leaving, seems very plausible. I believe this was actually discussed as a possibility OTL. Paul desperately wanted to keep the group together, George would get more songs without John taking up a good chunk of album space, and Ringo might even be able to get a song in now and then. John could be all artsy fartsy with Yoko and not piss off the rest of the band, and the fans still get a band recognizable as the Beatles for a longer period of time. It's a good situation for everyone.

How plausible do you think each of these scenarios are?

The band continues on as a four piece. (Doable I suppose, but very difficult. John would still likely leave in the mid 70s anyhow.)

John leaves, the other three carry on. (Seems the most likely alternative to me, for the reasons above.)

Paul leaves, the other three carry on. (Hard mode.)

George leaves, the other three carry on. (SUPER DE DUPER HARD MODE!)

Ringo leaves, the other three carry on. (Ringo was the one that broke up the band all along!)
 
Why do you consider George leaving and the rest of the band staying together to be the hardest of the ideas? Granted if you restrict the divergence to 1969/1970, then John Lennon is not likely to stay, but then again neither is George. In fact I can easily see George leaving earlier than John. I think you underestimate the degree to which Harrison resented Paul by the end. I cannot see Harrison continuing to work with him once John leaves. Converslely if Harrison leaves, a surviving trio is possible in my view, again depending largely on the date. Fundamentally the Beatles is John and Paul's band. If you remove either of them, then you do not really have the Beatles anymore. As good as he was, Harrison was a bit more expendable. Indeed, I think that John and Paul could get away with recording as a duo and calling themselves The Beatles if it came to that.
 
What they really needed was a rest in the early 70's.
So release the red and blue albums and mabye some singles that were 'saved up', a rock and roll covers lp which would only take a week to record. Macca did Run Devil Run in 3 days.
If they knew that they were going to make more records the songs written that were not on Let it Be and Abbey Road would make the basics of one in mid 72, recording it in late 71/early 72.
The trakes on that LP (a double?) could be Maybe I'm Amazed, Teddy Boy, Another Day, All things must Pass, My Sweet Lord, It Don't Come Easy, Photograph, Imagine, Jealous Guy.
Couple this with the advances in live P.A. going back live would not be the problem it was in the 60's.
If Lennon was still alive they would have done Live Aid, then a world tour.
 

mowque

Banned
My musical fiancee says this-

Ringo wasn't even part of the original band, so that would have little to no effect. George was a good song writer, but there's a reason he wasn't as strong a presence as John. There's no way John would have stayed around. He wanted to break off and do his own thing. If Paul left it never would've worked between the other three. As for Paul, George and Ringo... maybe. I can't help but think that Paul would've taken over and it would've turned into his show, though. George doesn't seem pushy enough to compete with him.
 
Well the thing is, Ringo was kind of the glue that held the band together, especially later on. If he leaves, if he's no longer willing to work with the others, that means that the writing is on the wall. He'd be the canary in the coal mine, as it were.

Again, I think this largely depends on when the divergence comes. If you try to save the group in 1969, you are not going to have much luck. Indeed, that Abbey Road exists at all is something of a miracle considering everything. But if you go further back I think things become a bit more manageable. You can say Epstein doesn't die, for example. Emerick's book, for example, strongly implies that the break was an indirect consequence of their visit to India, that before that trip the group was far more unified then they were after. Now, if I had a genie I would not make this wish, because there are a lot of great songs that emerged from that trip, but if say only Harrison went to India, the break might be delayed a few years, presuming of course that the trip did indeed explained the increased tensions during the White Album sessions.

I think some kind of collaboration between Lennon Starkey and Harrison is vaguely possible, considering Starkey recording with both, and the three recorded a song together for the Ringo album. It isn't likely, but it strikes me as a likelier permanent arrangement than McCartney Harrison Starkey, considering how they worked together in the solo years.

It's too bad that the least likely surviving rump group is the one that I find the most intriguing. That is, the Beatles split apart, but Lennon and McCartney continue to record together into the seventies. I honestly don't know what kind of divergence could create that outcome, regardless of the date of divergence.
 
Why do you consider George leaving and the rest of the band staying together to be the hardest of the ideas? Granted if you restrict the divergence to 1969/1970, then John Lennon is not likely to stay, but then again neither is George. In fact I can easily see George leaving earlier than John. I think you underestimate the degree to which Harrison resented Paul by the end. I cannot see Harrison continuing to work with him once John leaves. Converslely if Harrison leaves, a surviving trio is possible in my view, again depending largely on the date. Fundamentally the Beatles is John and Paul's band. If you remove either of them, then you do not really have the Beatles anymore. As good as he was, Harrison was a bit more expendable. Indeed, I think that John and Paul could get away with recording as a duo and calling themselves The Beatles if it came to that.
Ahh. I was under the impression most of the group tension came from Lennon and McCartney's egos battling it out for supremacy, creating an insufferable situation for all. I thought Harrison's major gripe was only getting two songs an album. With one of the two "alpha dogs" gone if you will, he'd get a lot more album time to work with.
 
It wasn't just album space. I think Harrison felt that McCartney condescended to him in the studio, and he therefore was unhappy working with him. Not that his relationship with John Lennon was perfect by the end either. Harrison really did not like Yoko Ono from what I've read, at least at first, to a greater extent than the Ringo and McCartney. Harrison's gripe really boiled down to respect. From the Lennon and McCartney perspective, Harrison was the kid who tagged along. They did not see him, at least until 1969, as an artistic equal. Album space was part of it, but there was considerably more to it than that.
 
It wasn't just album space. I think Harrison felt that McCartney condescended to him in the studio, and he therefore was unhappy working with him. Not that his relationship with John Lennon was perfect by the end either. Harrison really did not like Yoko Ono from what I've read, at least at first, to a greater extent than the Ringo and McCartney. Harrison's gripe really boiled down to respect. From the Lennon and McCartney perspective, Harrison was the kid who tagged along. They did not see him, at least until 1969, as an artistic equal. Album space was part of it, but there was considerably more to it than that.

Yes that seemed to be the factor that couldn't last. John, George, and Ringo all got along well and would have been the most likely trio to continue. I think Paul, John, and Ringo could have as well.
 
Its amazing they managed to get through The Beatles, Let It Be and Abbey Road to be honest. So a couple more albums is pretty possible.

1. Stop John from doing his primal scream therapy
2. Get the Eastmans in charge of Apple
3. Scrap 'Let It Be' completely
4. Put them on hiatus
5. Paul releases a much better debut album, John releases a very different Plastic Ono Band, George releases a single album rather than the triple, and Ringo is ringo
6. Have Paul pop off to the farm with Linda for a bit, John pop off to New York and get kicked out by Nixon
7. The Beatles reconvene a year later with plans for their new album 'Ram' continuing the direction of Abbey Road of art-rock song suites, etc, recorded at George's studio in Friar Park and practised at Paul's farm at the Mull of Kintyre.
8. The new album's a smash-hit but with the Rolling Stones firmly in their zenith, The Beatles are poised to be even more competitive
9. United Artists call up the Beatles angered after Let It Be is stopped from being released and demand they make a new film. They come to an agreement to put it on hold.
10. The Beatles release 'Imagine' (1972) and the slightly weaker 'Living in the Material World' (1973) before going to Africa on Paul's request to find a new direction, like India. Their tales of woe from Africa come back to haunt them, the result is the concept album 'Band On the Run' with plans for a fictional rock band like Sgt Pepper's escaping... they call up United Artists and propose a film...
11. Band On the Run and its accompanying film (written by... erm... THE PYTHONS and made by the new division of Apple - HandMade Films :D) is an enormous success and becomes the biggest selling album of the 1970s before being eclipsed by the 1970-1975 Greatest Hits album.
12. The Beatles decide to embark on an ill-fated world tour 'All Over The World', the tour breaks down and after being forced to complete its final concert, televised, at the BBC TV Centre, The Beatles announce they're breaking up - however, much more amicably with no contractual disputes.
13. Paul McCartney forms Wings, their first album, Wingspan, featuring the hits Listen to What the Man Said, and Call Me Back Again becomes an instant classic. Meanwhile, John and Pete Ham of Badfinger (recently broken up over a dispute about leaving Apple Records) enter a brief writing partnership before John retires from the music business. George increasingly becomes interested in the film industry and motor racing, neglecting his music, while Ringo lands himself a Prime Time US talk show "Ringo" - his first guests Wings and John and Pete.
14. Paul has success through the late 1970s and 1980s, sticking with George Martin alongside an ever-changing ensemble of musicians with Tug of War becoming his biggest selling album and Coming Up, Mull of Kintyre and Press becoming examples of his biggest hits.
15. Paul coaxes George into returning to music, before they know it Roy Orbison, Jeff Lynne and Bob Dylan have gotten involved. The result is the start of a collaboration album (with John and Ringo soon arriving) with the pseudonym 'The Traveling Wilburys'. The group's hits include 'End of the Line', 'This One', 'Inside Out', and 'Real Love'. The success of the album prompts the creation of the Anthology in the 1990s giving the Beatles a critical reassessment and elevating them to the position of the greatest band ever.
16. In 2012, The Beatles performed at the opening ceremony of the London Olympic Games performing Come Together and Hey Jude (for the first time live since 1975) before performing the entirety of Golden Slumbers/Carry That Weight/The End to close the Closing Ceremony.
17. John is currently a judge on BBC talent competition The Voice, whilst Paul is working on his latest experimental album with 'The Fireman'. George has largely retired from public life, preferring to concentrate on his cars, making a rare appearance on Top Gear. Ringo has most recently attended the premiere of Thomas 3D, where he voices many of the characters.
 
The biggest issue, in my view, is keeping Lennon interested in remaining in the band.

It was not Paul McCartney who broke the band up, it was John Lennon. Once he left, the band was finished, albeit with remaining material from earlier in 1969.

Therefore, the question here is how do we prevent John Lennon from deciding, once and for all, to depart the group in September 1969? That is not an easy thing to do, it might actually not be possible, but if you want the band to see January 1971, it has to be done.

In the past I have wondered if Cold Turkey being accepted by McCartney would be the key to that, but since it is hard to imagine him having a different atttitude towards it, that is probably off the table. So back to the drawing board

However if you alter a few things, a reunion in the 1970's might be possible. But even that takes some doing.
 
Last edited:
Its amazing they managed to get through The Beatles, Let It Be and Abbey Road to be honest. So a couple more albums is pretty poss
1. There is of course, a reason he did that. Lennon needed therapy in 1970. It also bears noting that this completely alters his 1970's output, not only will there not be a "Mother", there might not be a "Jealous Guy" (I mean the lyrics, the music dates to 1968.)
2. Even if Allen Klein died in a car crash or something before he met with Lennon, I doubt Lennon would ever have accepted Paul's in laws as managers. However had there been no Klein they probably would have taken control of Apple. In reverse from what actually happened I can see Lennon being the only holdout refusing to sign a management contract. But that would not stop them from taking Apple. Of course this alters Abbey Road. Since Paul basically gets his way in the contract disputes, he is not going to be writing You Never Give Me Your Money", which alters Abbey Road a bit. Also Come Together may reference Paul's refusal to sign with Klein, though that may just be an Urban Legend. Point being, there will be different songs on Abbey Road. Hopefully Long and Winding Road is one of them, though I've Got a Feeling would work better in the medley if they decide to take songs from the Get Back project.
3. Well if happier Paul means more "Get Back" songs show up on Abbey Road, then this co
uld easily happen. Albeit, you might end up with an EP in the UK and something cobbled together in the U.S. Other than avoiding the Long and Winding Road issue, I do not know why avoiding the Let it Be album has to happen if the Beatles are to stay together. The production can be different, Johns conceivably could have cobbled something releasable. Certainly its a good move imagewise, since LIB is not on par with Abbey Road, but I do not know if it is a must avoid.
4. Here's the crucial question. Assuming the removal of Klein and the triumph of the Eastmans, you have made Paul happier, and you have made him less likely to file his lawsuit. But what about John? Why does he want to stay? Indeed the Eastmans may not be able to convince him to keep his mouth shut about leaving since he does not like them.
 
Ahh. I was under the impression most of the group tension came from Lennon and McCartney's egos battling it out for supremacy, creating an insufferable situation for all. I thought Harrison's major gripe was only getting two songs an album. With one of the two "alpha dogs" gone if you will, he'd get a lot more album time to work with.

I heard that as well, the big problem is that Lennon and McCartney both thought of the Beetles as THEIR band. With that being a fact it is hard for them not to break up as there can be only one #1!
 
Top