Well, I think that maybe a few companies could rise to challenge them. Like maybe Image Comics. Imagine , who would be worse: low quality Marvel-DC or a larger Image Comics.
Dark Pop Culture Timelines
- Thread starter mr1940s
- Start date
Well, I think that maybe a few companies could rise to challenge them. Like maybe Image Comics. Imagine , who would be worse: low quality Marvel-DC or a larger Image Comics.
George W. Bush was spoiling for a fight with Saddam. One way or another, he'd get it, even if he had to declare martial law!
It would have been arguably an even better show. Thus, that argument is nullified.
CSI will be a success regardless. NCIS will still happen. But no NCIS: Los Angeles, NCIS: New Orleans, or The Unit. And in the U.K., Spooks (MI5) and Torchwood are gone, too.
No, we still have The Shrub trying to provoke war with Iraq and/or Iran through any means Rove, Rumsfeld, and Chaney can come up with, so that's still on the table.
It only loses Afghanistan. Iraq and/or Iran are still on the table.
So Chris Kyle lives, and his wife probably divorces him.
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
I'd been thinking -- would (most of) the Beatles staying together for the 1970's be considered worse or better than OTL? I mean yes, on the one hand, yay more Beatles. But on the other, would having such a dominant presence in pop music stick lasting longer be good for pop music in general? Or would they even remain such a dominant force (in sales, etc) if they lasted this much longer; in which case, mightn't that reduce their mythos? Or am I overthinking this, and more Beatles is obviously a good thing?
If the Beatles had somehow stayed together, there would have been less successful periods-they would have more critics. Critics were already beginning to turn on them in 1969-arguably as early as 1968. While they were successful with the public both Abbey Road and the White Album received mixed reviews. While Rolling Stone and other music publications loved John Lennon and would presumably continue to support the Beatles if they were still together-by 1973 even Lennon was losing critical support. Also, in 1971 there was a brief period where people were starting the think that their time had clearly passed-when they were much more out of favor than they would be even a few years later. Around 1973 or so there was a resurgence of interest in the band-represented by the Sgt. Pepper musical and the massive interest in the Alpha and Omega Bootleg followed by the official best of release-the first official Best of other than that weird 1966 U.K. only release that doesn't count. Commercially the Beatles would have been fine-McCartney was always sold well-and the rest didn't fare too badly all things considered. The Beatles continued presence would have had a butterfly effect on music during that time-if for no other reason than their popularity would have put a degree of competitive pressure on other artists that didn't exist when they were competing against the former members individually. Hard to know what that means precisely-but there'd be butterflies.
I'm convinced that had the Beatles stayed together-they wouldn't have maintained their 1960's time schedule and as such would by default be less present in the 1970's then they were in the 1960's. Unless you have a divergence in 1967 or so-in which case the musical landscape of the 1970's could be too different to tell where the band would play a part in it.
After Abbey Road -the only way I could see the Beatles remaining together would have been on an occasional basis. Essentially, the four members would have pursued solo careers, but at times working on group projects. The reason I say this is that by 1969 John Lennon wanted out of the band-and that's hard to avoid. He's the one who decided the full band wouldn't record again past then. He did not participate in the last sessions the Beatles had in 1970 to finish up I Me Mine.
The Klein vs. Eastman fight was also fatal-though if the Get Back/Let it Be problem could be solved without McCartney suing to dissolve the band the late 1969 situation could persist. In which case you'd see a bunch of solo releases in 1970 but no formal split announcement. Lennon was a mercurial man, and 1971 is awhile after 1969 from that perspective. It's not inconceivable that without McCartney's lawsuit the Concert for Bangladesh would have been a Beatles rather than a Harrison solo project. After all Ringo did play both Lennon and McCartney were invited. That might be followed by a real studio project but it might not.
It's harder for me to say what would have happened past that point as there's a lot of unknowns the further out you get-such as Lennon's move to New York City, the formation of Wings, etc.
But in general, I think they would have had a slower release schedule punctuated by solo releases. How slow that release schedule would have been is unpredictable.
A slower schedule could save the band from a period which I think would have been bad. I really wouldn't want them to release anything in 1972 based on what Lennon and McCartney did release that year. The critical nadir of both men's careers occurred around that period-which to me indicates that it wouldn't have been a friendly climate to their band had they been united. The more relaxed their schedule is the greater chance that they can avoid problematic periods. If that's the case the band's first post 1971 release could coincide with the mid 1970's resurgence of interest in them which would protect them from falling too far out of favor. It's possible that fans would say that material released past a certain point didn't count and that the best days of the band were behind them-but that doesn't mean that the best days would be retrospectively deemed worse except by the kind of listeners who didn't like it to begin with.
But as far as sales were concerned the Beatles would have remained a force for awhile. Critics may not have loved Abbey Road the way they did Sgt. Pepper-but it sold. And as a matter of fact-it's still their most successful album. If Paul McCartney sold well, it stands to reason the Beatles would have as well especially when you consider they won't have the outright critical disdain that McCartney often endured.
Of course I'm a fan who named himself here after one of their songs. So I'm more forgiving and optimistic than perhaps I should be. But I'm also skeptical of the idea that a bad release somehow invalidates earlier brilliance with any artist. To use a 1960's example Dylan's 1980's nadir doesn't somehow make Blonde on Blonde a weaker album.
But at least in 1971 the Beatles would have been precisely where they were in 1969 if they had remained together-what would have happened after that is unpredictable but they would have remained a commercially successful band. The big question in my mind is whether the resurgence of interest would have happened without the drama of the split.
The Director
Banned
My god... my free-time has just been genocided.
You're one sick person, ya know?
I've been thinking about having Trent Reznor die of the heroin OD he had while on tour in London as part of something, but I really don't know the effect this would have on the wider musical environment.John Fredrick Parker
Donor
This is a better, well written answer than I could have hoped for. Much thanks!