Could The Beatles have had a better year in 1968?

[Glass Onion]

Now when I say a better year, I do not mean in terms of the charts or their critical reputation. 1968 was the year where the band began to fall apart. Almost all the tensions that would eventually split the group apart, began in 1968, and the misery of 1969 was a natural extension of that year. The band ceased to function as a unit until the Abbey Road sessions the next year, by which point John Lennon had almost completely given up on the band, and everyone in the inner circle knew they were done.

So my question, for those more informed than I am, is simple, could 1968 have been a less tense year for the group? I know that there are at least two possibilities that have been touched upon, but I have reservations about them both. The big one, which oddly has not really been brought up too often here, is the absense of Yoko Ono. While that would certainly make things less tense, it might lead Lennon to continue to disengage, and he might drift away entirely. The other is a single album emerging out of Rikikesh, but that could easily make things worse, as someone's songs would have to be cut, and the arguments over what goes and what stays would not be pleasant. So basically to what extent could the year go better, and what would have to change to make that happen?

 

[flippikat]

So my question, for those more informed than I am, is simple, could 1968 have been a less tense year for the group? I know that there are at least two possibilities that have been touched upon, but I have reservations about them both. The big one, which oddly has not really been brought up too often here, is the absense of Yoko Ono. While that would certainly make things less tense, it might lead Lennon to continue to disengage, and he might drift away entirely. The other is a single album emerging out of Rikikesh, but that could easily make things worse, as someone's songs would have to be cut, and the arguments over what goes and what stays would not be pleasant. So basically to what extent could the year go better, and what would have to change to make that happen?

I think if they didn't go to Rishikesh with the Maharishi, there may have been a more positive feeling going into their album sessions that year. The way that escapade ended probably planted a few seeds of mistrust between them - especially since meditation was one of George's big interests.

 

[tallthinkev]

Don't make the White Album a double LP would be a good start.

 

[Romantic Nihilist]

Brian Epstein lives?

 

[Glass Onion]

Don't make the White Album a double LP would be a good start.

Whatever the critical merits of such a move, such a decision could easily lead to even more tension within the group, and it would certainly lead to a loud clash over what would appear. Given the power dynamic of the group, as well as George Martin's reaction to the songs presented from what I have read, most of the cuts would probably be John Lennon songs, and of course two of Harrison's songs and one of the Ringo songs would be gone as well. That would not sit well with Lennon. The advantage of such a move would be briefer recording sessions, which would indeed be good for the group's health, but the issue is complex.

 

[Glass Onion]

Brian Epstein lives?

I should have been more specific. You can make the case they were doomed to fall apart from the moment of Brian's death. But, to the extent such a thing is possible, I want to know how 1968 could have gone better with a divergence past that point.

 

[Glass Onion]

I think if they didn't go to Rishikesh with the Maharishi, there may have been a more positive feeling going into their album sessions that year. The way that escapade ended probably planted a few seeds of mistrust between them - especially since meditation was one of George's big interests.

That's certainly a possibility. I think the Maharishi must have encouraged a more individual outlook in the group than had previously been the case, because by all accounts, they did not record with the same kind of unity they had even in January during the White album sessions.

Another option is for Lennon to simply leave India early, before Magic Alex comes, and to begin serious recording slightly earlier. In that case you would still avoid the unpleasant end of that episode.

 

[Craig_Truglia]

I love the beatles, but creatively they were already losing steam by the end of 1968. Let it Be must have been their worst release in decades. THey were no longer innovators in their genre, something that helped them stay on top for so long.

It is interesting to think if the Beatles would have continued, how they would have sounded. I'd hope George Harrison would have been allowed to shine, as All THings Must Past is easily the best solo album that any of them release by a lot.

 

[MatthewFirth]

Maybe spilt the album in 2, release one in 68 and another in 1969, then release the Get Back LP by Christmas, before Abbey Road is delayed till 1970

 

[tallthinkev]

Maybe spilt the album in 2, release one in 68 and another in 1969, then release the Get Back LP by Christmas, before Abbey Road is delayed till 1970

Get Back is not a Beatles LP, it's just another US botch up.

 

[Craig_Truglia]

Splitting up the white album would have not worked imho. THe first rec ord was gold, but the second record would have pissed everyone off who bought the first one. There were talks of making the "white album" and the "whiter album."

 

[Glass Onion]

Splitting up the white album would have not worked imho. The first record was gold, but the second record would have pissed everyone off who bought the first one. There were talks of making the "white album" and the "whiter album."

There are other ways to divide the album songs then the way they did, but I agree that a split would be problematic. As far as I know, the White and Whiter talk was all after the fact, their choice was between a single and a double LP. I could be wrong, but the phrase itself dates to an anthology interview, and does not reflect contemporaneous attitudes.

 

[cortz#9]

What if John meets a different woman instead of Yoko? Someone who gets along well with the other Beatles.
What if she's also anti hard drugs and keeps Lennon from diving to deeply into heroin use?
A woman with a more positive effect on Lennon might have a more positive effect on the Beatles.

 

[Glass Onion]

What if John meets a different woman instead of Yoko? Someone who gets along well with the other Beatles.
What if she's also anti hard drugs and keeps Lennon from diving to deeply into heroin use?
A woman with a more positive effect on Lennon might have a more positive effect on the Beatles.

Well, I think at least part of Lennon's attraction for Ono was precisely the fact that she lacked any high appreciation for the group, that she didn't see him as and fawn over "Beatle John." I think even if he fell for someone else, she would have the same basic personality type and that would lead to tension. Also, a fair amount of what Yoko was blamed for in 1968 was Lennon's doing. It was John who wanted Yoko in the studio, the man was intensely jealous and was afraid that she would leave him at the earliest opportunity to do so. The alternate woman would still be dragged to the studio, and would have been the assertive type. That means that she will not get along well with the rest of the band. Heroin you can avoid, because maybe this hypothetical woman doesn't have the same experience with heroin Ono did. But then, the pressures that led to his use would still be there, he would have just have found another outlet for it.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

I love the beatles, but creatively they were already losing steam by the end of 1968. Let it Be must have been their worst release in decades. THey were no longer innovators in their genre, something that helped them stay on top for so long.

That was the point. The point after 1968, and even during 1968 (gradually), was getting away from the hyper-production and psychedelia to just do Rock music or just Folk music or whatever it may have been, dynamic in it's own right but not overtly produced and not drawing it's uniqueness and dynamism and all that from production techniques. It was a 'getting back' to roots in reaction to going out there with everything in the psychedelic era, and it was part of an overall trend in Rock music during that period. Artists were looking deeper inward and trying to get back to themselves and to something true and natural. You can see that in what the Rolling Stones did, as well as Bob Dylan when he went Country and Country Rock, and in artists like Neil Young and The Band. The Beatles started that with the White Album, picking it up with full force with an attempt at an album with what became, after a clusterfuck, the album "Let it Be". The reason for any problems in quality with that album is not the concept or the lack of innovation; which if you consider innovation production tricks, as the Beatles came to view them, it is lacking in. It's the fact that the recording sessions crumbled, and they were forced to get who ended up being Phil Spector to dig through the mess and pull the right things out of it to make something.

That 'getting back' concept could have produced something much, much better had things not crumbled. I mean, listen to this attempt at a studio version of "Across the Universe", and note McCartney's duet with Lennon, and especially the bass near the end which would have been part of the whole song in a proper, successful recording. Sweet Jesus. That said, "Let it Be" is a good album on the whole, so it shouldn't be battered.

 

[Turek]

Paul was an overdominating arse, John was a jealous hypocrite . . .

It didn't really work out well.

Of course, it really starts in Brian Epstein's death, as others have said. But it's 1968.

It's on record that Paul would spend hours nitpicking his songs, but John's would be a goof-off.

George once said that George Martin wanted the White Album to be a single album, but the Beatles wanted to be free of the EMI album output . . . and Ego wouldn't bend.

Shorten it to a single album? Let's not mention the other songs that could have been on the list.

But if things had been better? If there was less discord?

Yes.

I'm not saying that only thirteen of the songs on the White Album would be released. I'm just saying that overall, the songs would be in a different order, and . . . better.

I feel like even songs like 'Why Don't We Do It In The Road'* would either be meshed together with other scraps or put on like 'Her Majesty' as a 'bonus'.

But yes, the Beatles could have had a much better year.

(The problem with Alternate History dealing with culture, though: We can't hear the songs. We wouldn't be able to read any Alternate books. It's sad, isn't it?)

*I'd like to note that it's one of my favorite songs on the album. Not to say I don't like the others.

 

[cortz#9]

Well, I think at least part of Lennon's attraction for Ono was precisely the fact that she lacked any high appreciation for the group, that she didn't see him as and fawn over "Beatle John." I think even if he fell for someone else, she would have the same basic personality type and that would lead to tension. Also, a fair amount of what Yoko was blamed for in 1968 was Lennon's doing. It was John who wanted Yoko in the studio, the man was intensely jealous and was afraid that she would leave him at the earliest opportunity to do so. The alternate woman would still be dragged to the studio, and would have been the assertive type. That means that she will not get along well with the rest of the band. Heroin you can avoid, because maybe this hypothetical woman doesn't have the same experience with heroin Ono did. But then, the pressures that led to his use would still be there, he would have just have found another outlet for it.

While John may still bring his hypothetical woman into the studio unlike Yoko she probably wouldn't expect to "jam" with the band and contribute to their work the way Yoko did and while she again might not fawn over the other Beatles she might not get on their nerves either.
I'm not saying nor do I believe Yoko is to blame for the Beatles breaking up but she was a contributing factor.
Take her out of the picture and a few small changes could snowball into a mountain of butterflies.
I think there were several factors for "68" being a bad year and in the end I think you need to change several things to make "68" a better year.
Not going to India and George not being dead set against playing live again among them.
Change one of these things and things could be better, change all of them and things will definitely be different.
Not necessarily better but different.

 

[flippikat]

(re: Not going to India) That's certainly a possibility. I think the Maharishi must have encouraged a more individual outlook in the group than had previously been the case, because by all accounts, they did not record with the same kind of unity they had even in January during the White album sessions.

Another option is for Lennon to simply leave India early, before Magic Alex comes, and to begin serious recording slightly earlier. In that case you would still avoid the unpleasant end of that episode.

I think the "individual outlook" was developing in the group ever since the pre-Pepper break in late 1966. While meditation & the Maharishi may have encouraged self-confidence to do solo projects, the trend had already begun a couple of years earlier.

As for Lennon leaving India earlier, it depends on why he leaves early.

If it's as simple as wanting to get in a studio ASAP and start on the next Beatles album then that could be a positive sign for the group. It all depends on the reaction from the others.

Would Paul (for instance) accept that 1967 was "his" year, but this time we'll try John's direction? It didn't happen in OTL, but that's the sort of thinking that would make for a better 1968.


If John leaves India early because of disillusionment with the Maharishi that's worse than in OTL it could make things even more strained between him and George. ("It was your bleedin' idea! I shouldn't have listened to you!")

 

[Craig_Truglia]

The Beatles were always innovators. They were the best boy band. They were then the best Psychedelic rock group.

But by 1970, weren't bands like Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath taking over. TO me, I think the Beatles lacked the creativity by 1969 and 1970 to far long look like a major rock back next to the harder direction rock was moving in.

The Beatles would have struggled to find a direction yet maintaining their status as "legit." They would have probably stayed as a pop-rock band and sold a lot less albums, and their stuff I imagine would have sounded like their solo stuff.

 

[tallthinkev]

Ringo has said that if they had still been together in the '70's they would have been ELO. ELO didn't stuffer because of Sabbath and Led Zep.