Could The Beatles have had a better year in 1968?
- Thread starter Glass Onion
- Start date
Craig_Truglia
Banned
1. ELO was more electronic than the Beatles, and the Beatles in their solo careers were never close to ELO when it comes to slick production
2. ELO sucked in the disco era.
3. ELO was never as big as the beatles. THe beatles were going 10x 20x platinum. Led Zeppelin approached that. The beatles probably would have been eclipsed as the biggest rock act by LZ.
From what I know, Lennon was getting bored and lonely towards the end of his experience in India, and that could have led to his departure without him being particularly disillusioned with the Maharishi, he could have simply decided to go back to England to be with his other friends rather than wait around in India a little longer.
As far as their reputation in the 1970's tastes do change, and all of the Beatles had periods in which they were in commercial and critical decline. But Lennon and Harrison were successful solo artists through 1971 at least, both in critical and commercial terms. And commercially, McCartney was always successful. Even Wild Life went to 11. Therefore, I think they had at least a couple of years left as the biggest group in music. But that's hard to tell. In any event, if you are talking strictly about commercial value, they'll still be massively selling for awhile longer than that. Critical reception of both The Beatles and Abbey Road was mixed, but both sold very well even by outsized Beatle standards. Even at his lowest critical point, Paul McCartney still sold well, why wouldn't the Beatles?
I can see 1972 being a bad year, but I think bands like Pink Floyd would be a bigger competition for the Beatle audience than hard rock acts. But then again, I could be wrong about that.
That digression aside and going back to the alt-Yoko idea, one interesting idea is if the hypothetical woman gets along well with George Harrison. It was Harrison, more than anyone else in the group, who hated Yoko Ono in the late Beatle period. He and Lennon actually had a physical altercation abou Harrison's disdain, and by 1969 Lennon made a point of not showing up when Harrison was recording. The odd thing was before Yoko entered the picture, Lennon and Harrison had been very close, they both stayed in India the longest. Had Hypothetical Second Mrs. Lennon and George Harrison gotten along, Lennon and Harrison would have been closer in that period. It may not have saved the Beatles, but it'd make a rump everyone but Paul group exponentially more likely.
I can see 1972 being a bad year, but I think bands like Pink Floyd would be a bigger competition for the Beatle audience than hard rock acts. But then again, I could be wrong about that.
That digression aside and going back to the alt-Yoko idea, one interesting idea is if the hypothetical woman gets along well with George Harrison. It was Harrison, more than anyone else in the group, who hated Yoko Ono in the late Beatle period. He and Lennon actually had a physical altercation abou Harrison's disdain, and by 1969 Lennon made a point of not showing up when Harrison was recording. The odd thing was before Yoko entered the picture, Lennon and Harrison had been very close, they both stayed in India the longest. Had Hypothetical Second Mrs. Lennon and George Harrison gotten along, Lennon and Harrison would have been closer in that period. It may not have saved the Beatles, but it'd make a rump everyone but Paul group exponentially more likely.
Last edited:
Craig_Truglia
Banned
Even Michael Jackson kept selling when he was lame. If the Beatles stayed together they would have never fully burned out, but rather sold several times platinum with each new release. But, I agree by 72 or 73 the bandwagoners would have dropped off.
Remember, the Beatles were the second biggest selling artists in the US in the 2000s...behind only Eminem. If they kept selling new music, people would have bought it for sure...and they were talented enough not to totally kill their brand either. But, Beatles fans would unaminously say 70s beatles sucks compared to 60s beatles...it would be interesting to see what 80s beatles would have been...
Remember, the Beatles were the second biggest selling artists in the US in the 2000s...behind only Eminem. If they kept selling new music, people would have bought it for sure...and they were talented enough not to totally kill their brand either. But, Beatles fans would unaminously say 70s beatles sucks compared to 60s beatles...it would be interesting to see what 80s beatles would have been...
Another option may be for Yoko Ono to hold Lennon off slightly longer than she did, such that the post Rikikesh sessions do not occur in the midst of Lennon's divorce drama and heroin addiction. Lennon had already woken up from his disengaged slumber in India, and if Yoko Ono had waited a few more months before agreeing to be in a relationship with Lennon, he would have still have been engaged, but the divorce would not have been hanging over his head, and that would change things. Of course outright rejection would probably just lead to depression. So it's a fine line.
They weren't...*deep sigh*... they were not a boy band. A boy band is a manufactured entity corporately designed, generally featuring vapid content written by in house songwriters. The Monkees were a boy band. A boy band is assembled by some corporate guy and label. An actual band exists and is signed to a label. The Beatles are no more a boy band than the Rolling Stones ever were, nor the Zombies, nor the Hollies, nor the Animals, etc. The problem is that Pop music no longer just means whatever music was popular, as it did in those days, hence the pop label brings to mind "oh, they must be a boy band". The Rolling Stones were under the category of pop music in those days. All those groups were in pop music. Then there is the issue of girls, which brings to mind "oh, boy band". No, in those days, screaming girls were the bedrock of Rock n' Roll music. Boys also listened to those groups, including the Beatles, on par with girls. Everyone liked the Beatles. And Rock music was for a young demographic, hence why it was listened to by teens and young adults mostly. This was also the case with the metal and hard rock bands like Black Sabbath and Led Zeppelin and Aerosmith and Motorhead. Teens and young adults were the audience for that music.
Another difference between then and now is that music is very uptight now about the audience. It used to be that you could be liked by everyone (even if they didn't listen to your music). Now these bands don't want that. They wanna be out there, or they want to be bad ass, or they want to turn off everyone except their target audience, or whatever the case may be. The only people that do want that, and target that, are the boy bands.
What lead to the creation of the boy band came out of the Beatles, but it was not inclusive of the Beatles. The big labels looked at what happened with the Beatles, which was a mania, merchandising, selling likeability and putting labels on them ("the smart one", "the cute one", etc), movies and assorted cross marketing, etc, and they used that as the model to make artificial groups, which became the boy bands. The difference between the Beatles and boy bands is that boy bands are astroturf and the Beatles and other bands are natural. The Beatles were what they were and managed to make it big, and exploded and succeeded on their merits, and that was tapped into, and tapped into to make money. Boy bands, on the contrary, are created specifically to generate money. There is no soul to them, and you can see it in their music, which means nothing. Even in the most basic pop of any group, including the Beatles, you can sense there is a soul there because those guys wrote it. You can always tell that a boy band song is a boy band song because it's like a preprogrammed robot. The point of a band is to do what it does, and make money based on what it does. The point of a boy band is to simply find a way to make money, and make something to do that to make money. A band comes from the normal population and is natural and real, and a boy band comes from the minds of corporations for corporate purposes, and it is a corporate, artificial venture cobbled together to be sold to a target demographic, and buoyed enough to keep going as a money making scheme by whoever is running it.
Craig_Truglia
Banned
For what it was worth, Backstreet BOys was organically put together from what my wife tells me...
Everyday Chemistry is a one of those unofficial mash-up albums. I've heard it, it's fab!
I wrote this down a week ago. I'm not sure if it was for this topic or the Epstein one. My brain doesn't work in a way that I would know, so I'll just post it here.
If John Lennon were to leave the group in a less McCartney-centric environment, the band may very well stay together minus that member as there would not be the 'McCartney vs Everyone else' dynamic.
You would certainly have some factors to work out of that thought. For one, it would make the Beatles more human as a band. The Beatles are an archetype for the ideal of a band because all the Beatles were always the Beatles, and they stopped being Beatles together and once it was done it was done. That's affected the perception of them and how they exist in the popular imagination. If John Lennon leaves while the rest keep going, even if he isn't replaced, that demystifies and removes a fair bit of that magic from their legacy. Secondly, you'd have to think how the rest would operate without Lennon. Ringo would go along with whatever was going on; it's McCartney and Harrison you'd have to figure out. A kneejerk idea would be Harrison now able to shine, but you'd also have to take into account McCartney's bossiness and showboating. I don't think he'd respect Harrison as an equal, whether conscious of that or not. Could he in time? Perhaps. Could circumstances of the time when he would not respect him as an equal mean that he is not a jerk about it until he does? Perhaps. You'd also need to take into account that while McCartney was probably the Beatle most happy and desiring to be a Beatle, he also had gotten into a habit of going off on his own and recording without the involvement of the others, while still labeling it a Beatles record. Lennon absolutely hated when he recorded without the involvement of the other three. That could be a problem, and could be a growing point of conflict between McCartney and Harrison and Starr. What's the use of being a Beatle when you really aren't anything but a technicality anymore? I do think, though, that it would be interesting if things did work out and Harrison really did get the chance to show how good he was, both to McCartney and the public. I do wonder, though, if his song quality may go downhill not having to compete with both Lennon and McCartney. Or perhaps if it'd improve, having to go to competition directly with McCartney. I had other thoughts, but I've lost my train of thought.
If John Lennon were to leave the group in a less McCartney-centric environment, the band may very well stay together minus that member as there would not be the 'McCartney vs Everyone else' dynamic.
You would certainly have some factors to work out of that thought. For one, it would make the Beatles more human as a band. The Beatles are an archetype for the ideal of a band because all the Beatles were always the Beatles, and they stopped being Beatles together and once it was done it was done. That's affected the perception of them and how they exist in the popular imagination. If John Lennon leaves while the rest keep going, even if he isn't replaced, that demystifies and removes a fair bit of that magic from their legacy. Secondly, you'd have to think how the rest would operate without Lennon. Ringo would go along with whatever was going on; it's McCartney and Harrison you'd have to figure out. A kneejerk idea would be Harrison now able to shine, but you'd also have to take into account McCartney's bossiness and showboating. I don't think he'd respect Harrison as an equal, whether conscious of that or not. Could he in time? Perhaps. Could circumstances of the time when he would not respect him as an equal mean that he is not a jerk about it until he does? Perhaps. You'd also need to take into account that while McCartney was probably the Beatle most happy and desiring to be a Beatle, he also had gotten into a habit of going off on his own and recording without the involvement of the others, while still labeling it a Beatles record. Lennon absolutely hated when he recorded without the involvement of the other three. That could be a problem, and could be a growing point of conflict between McCartney and Harrison and Starr. What's the use of being a Beatle when you really aren't anything but a technicality anymore? I do think, though, that it would be interesting if things did work out and Harrison really did get the chance to show how good he was, both to McCartney and the public. I do wonder, though, if his song quality may go downhill not having to compete with both Lennon and McCartney. Or perhaps if it'd improve, having to go to competition directly with McCartney. I had other thoughts, but I've lost my train of thought.
Last edited: