DBWI: The Beatles had kept on going?

For those of you who didn't grow up in a house with 24/7 oldies radio (or aren't old enough to remember the hype surrounding their one-off reunion), the Beatles were a quirky English pop group who had a bunch of hit records and an insanely huge following from about 1964 to 1966. It seems a bit ridiculous now, but "Beatlemania" was a massive phenomenon in that brief period, here is just a tiny taste of it at its peak. Fans would actually try to cut off pieces of these guys' hair as keepsakes, and some people thought they could literally heal the sick. Ironically, the Beatles' success also hastened their demise. The stresses of fame, coupled with a slew of controversies and an underwhelming response to their final album led to the dissolution of the group shortly after their 1966 tour of the United States.

Their final album - Revolver - has undergone quite a bit of reappraisal over the last 30 years or so. Though it was largely overlooked when it came out (understandable, considering everything else that was going on around that time), it's a good, surprisingly consistent collection of psychedelic pop. The popular consensus seems to be that it was the perfect swan song for the group, and that they ended on a high note, having finally hit maturity but going out on top before they became formulaic and passe. That said, there has always been a contingent of fans with a dissenting view, who feel as though the group could have continued to evolve. They often cite the handful of moderate hits that individual group members went on to achieve in the latter half of the decade (ask your parents if they remember "Strawberry Fields Forever").

If the Beatles had lasted beyond 1966, do you think they could have remained relevant and successful? Or were they truly a relic of the "British Invasion" who bowed out at just the right time?
 
Last edited:
I think they would have absolutely remained successful. After all, Elvis remained successful even after he returned from the Army.

Whether they would have still been relevant in the age of Hendrix and Iron Butterfly is a harder question.
 
Eh, the British invasion was always doomed to be a fad, at least until the metal bands started coming over.

You had four mop tops going against Elvis' Renaissance... you think they could beat the King of Rock in his golden years?

I mean, Paul McCartney later went on to do stuff with other bands... I think John Lenin went to jail for abusing his wife and kid... not sure what became of the other two... Greg Hutchinson and Scottie Pippin, right?
 
Whether they would have still been relevant in the age of Hendrix and Iron Butterfly is a harder question.
I've always wondered what would have happened if they'd stuck around for another year or two and gotten proper amplification.
That said, there is also the issue of whether or not they would still be "socially relevant" in the late 1960s. It's hard to imagine teenage girls screaming over songs about revolution.
 
They all had solid upper tier careers for the remainder of their lives. I don't see why they'd not rode the wave a few more years as a group.
 
They all had solid upper tier careers for the remainder of their lives. I don't see why they'd not rode the wave a few more years as a group.

Interestingly, Paul McCartney easily had the best post-Beatles career. He and his wife Linda helped form a new group in 1969, Wings, that became a major financial success during the 1970's and 1980's. Of course, it helped that McCartney worked closely with George Martin, the Beatles' recording engineer, during the same period. And McCartney collaborated with a number of other artists (as mentioned earlier), particularly a fruitful one with Michael Jackson in the middle 1980's.
 
Interestingly, Paul McCartney easily had the best post-Beatles career. He and his wife Linda helped form a new group in 1969, Wings, that became a major financial success during the 1970's and 1980's. Of course, it helped that McCartney worked closely with George Martin, the Beatles' recording engineer, during the same period. And McCartney collaborated with a number of other artists (as mentioned earlier), particularly a fruitful one with Michael Jackson in the middle 1980's.

George outlasted Paul though; his album Lay His Head was the 8th biggest album of 1989 while Paul didn't have any hit albums after 1982 (the success of the singles was all thanks to Michael).
 
Yet what ended The Beatles was not a fall off
of their record sales but first, dissension
within the group as to who would become their new manager after the death of their
1st manager, Brian Epstein, in 1966. Second,
& probably even more important, was John
Lennon's turning away from music for politi-
cal activism, culminating of course in his
decision in 1972 to move to the U .S. & be-
come an American citizen so he could help
George McGovern's presidential campign. (Since them Lennon's political
activities are so well known that they do
not require to be gone over). If the Beatles
had been able to come to an agreement re
their manager & if Lennon had wanted to
stay in music, who knows how long they
could have stayed together & what they
could have accomplished? As Jann Wenner,
the noted publisher of ROLLING STONE,
recently put it "The Beatles will always
remain rock-&-roll's biggest 'what-if'
story."
 
Last edited:
The Marvel Cinematic Universe(MCU)would not be the incredible hit machine it is today
if Ringo hadn’t agreed to play Tony Stark in
the 2008 surprise hit picture IRON MAN. The
rest, as they say, is history. As another big
mega-star, Tom Cruise(who believe it or not
now, some people @ the time thought should have gotten the role instead)recently put it, “I can’t imagine anyone but Ringo playing Tony Stark.”
 
Well, first of all George wouldn't have made that famous supergroup with Eric Clapton in 1968, so we would've lost hits like "Have You Heard? (Of The News Today)" or "If I Could Find You". Secondly, John probably wouldn't have become an artist full time, Paul probably would've still made a band, Ringo would still do film, but probably wouldn't be a movie star like he is today. We wouldn't have the famous reunion album in 1987 "Return To Pepperland".

[OOC - how can the reunion album be 'Return to Pepperland', if the Beatles final album was Revolver....? That POD butterflies-away OTL'S Sgt Pepper.. unless it's Paul's first solo album (complete with a plethora of "guest appearances"...) But even then, I'm not sure they'd make a sequel to a solo work... I'll try and leave a door open for you if you wanna use it.. ]


(In character) Yeah, not sure how they could have followed Revolver - it was just too schizophrenic an album - you had garage-rock, verging on psychedelia.. ballads, Byrds-type jangle, and a kids song too.. and goodness knows what they were thinking on that closing track!

I heard that Paul was keen on a full-blown production for the next Beatles album - I mean, that's what he did in 1967 with his early solo stuff after EMI gave him all the studio time he wanted.. that first solo album bombed badly in the charts, but there's a few die-hard fans out there that think it's better than the Smile album that the Beach Boys put out in 1967. I wonder if John and George would have written some songs to make that project better? As it is, Paul was left with no option but to start a band and strip his music right back in 1968.. EMI were not happy with such an expensive folly!

Somehow, though, I don't think John would've gone with so much production.. he was a rocker at heart. Gees, he really took it hard when EMI dropped him in 1967 after that disasterous recording session (the story goes that he was trying to record his second single after Strawberry Fields Forever, but he took the wrong pills & started attacking the engineers with his guitar, thinking they were demons). To his credit, he resurfaced in late 1967 with a 3-piece band alongside Ringo & Klaus Voorman, but the albums they made on Decca Records - mostly demented 50s rock'n'roll covers mixed in with his own pained howlings - are a acquired taste. It probably saved his life getting into politics. He certainly mellowed, and found a purpose there.
 
Oh, I forgot to mention George. Man, what a career post-Beatles.

As well as Blind Faith (what a run *that* supergroup had from 1968 to '70. Clapton & Harrison are still the 'gold standard' for dual-guitar lineups), he then jumped to Harrison, Nash & Furay (sometimes Harrison, Nash, Furay & Stills when Stephen Stills decided to join in..), and managed to have a great solo career. And that was just the '70s!
 
Oh, I forgot to mention George. Man, what a career post-Beatles.

As well as Blind Faith (what a run *that* supergroup had from 1968 to '70. Clapton & Harrison are still the 'gold standard' for dual-guitar lineups), he then jumped to Harrison, Nash & Furay (sometimes Harrison, Nash, Furay & Stills when Stephen Stills decided to join in..), and managed to have a great solo career. And that was just the '70s!

Without Harrison we probably wouldn't have seen the emergence of Cape punk as a genre. Its well known that Purple Monkey Disorder kickstarted the genre in the 1980s, with their anti-authoritarian and anti-apartheid music (PMD are still probably the only true global band to come out of South Africa). But Craig Roberts, one of the founders and leadsinger of PMD says it was listening to his dad's Blind Faith albums in the late 1970s and early 1980s that got him into music. No Blind Faith maybe means no PMD, which means no Recency Illusion or no The Habit. Imagine the music world without them, would be terrible.
 
Oh, I forgot to mention George. Man, what a career post-Beatles.

As well as Blind Faith (what a run *that* supergroup had from 1968 to '70. Clapton & Harrison are still the 'gold standard' for dual-guitar lineups), he then jumped to Harrison, Nash & Furay (sometimes Harrison, Nash, Furay & Stills when Stephen Stills decided to join in..), and managed to have a great solo career. And that was just the '70s!
Your damn right! He had an amazing solo career. I also loved his work with Cream from 1967 to early 1968, he only added guitar but it dueled Clapton's a lot. I also loved his debut album "Isn't It A Pity". Billy Preston added an amazing R&B feel to it, along with Clapton's guitar playing. That's what put it onto the top 100 rock albums of all time. Though, it is a shame he died in 2016. He had an amazing run.
 
[OOC - how can the reunion album be 'Return to Pepperland', if the Beatles final album was Revolver....? That POD butterflies-away OTL'S Sgt Pepper.. unless it's Paul's first solo album (complete with a plethora of "guest appearances"...) But even then, I'm not sure they'd make a sequel to a solo work... I'll try and leave a door open for you if you wanna use it.. ]


(In character) Yeah, not sure how they could have followed Revolver - it was just too schizophrenic an album - you had garage-rock, verging on psychedelia.. ballads, Byrds-type jangle, and a kids song too.. and goodness knows what they were thinking on that closing track!

I heard that Paul was keen on a full-blown production for the next Beatles album - I mean, that's what he did in 1967 with his early solo stuff after EMI gave him all the studio time he wanted.. that first solo album bombed badly in the charts, but there's a few die-hard fans out there that think it's better than the Smile album that the Beach Boys put out in 1967. I wonder if John and George would have written some songs to make that project better? As it is, Paul was left with no option but to start a band and strip his music right back in 1968.. EMI were not happy with such an expensive folly!

Somehow, though, I don't think John would've gone with so much production.. he was a rocker at heart. Gees, he really took it hard when EMI dropped him in 1967 after that disasterous recording session (the story goes that he was trying to record his second single after Strawberry Fields Forever, but he took the wrong pills & started attacking the engineers with his guitar, thinking they were demons). To his credit, he resurfaced in late 1967 with a 3-piece band alongside Ringo & Klaus Voorman, but the albums they made on Decca Records - mostly demented 50s rock'n'roll covers mixed in with his own pained howlings - are a acquired taste. It probably saved his life getting into politics. He certainly mellowed, and found a purpose there.
Sorry about that, i had to think of a name and that came into my mind.
(In Character)
I kind of regard it as a reunion album because they all had songs together on it, and it did have a Beatles feel to it. So sorry if i mistaked it. But i liked Johns band "The Moondogs" even though their songs were demented. It was like The Mothers Of Invention part 2. They only had 3 albums before they broke up in 1969.
 
I also heard that Epstein (before his death), lended John The Velvet Underground's debut album. That inspired John heavily to start The Moondogs, but he also Listened to The Mothers Of Invention so thats why i think why the songs were so demented.

I sort of liked Pauls debut album, but i didn't like the "Granny Rocker Songs" as John said. I liked "Getting Better" though.
 
It is thought by some that the Beatles might have produced the first rock album to gain critical acclaim. It's said that it was creative differences within the band over that very album is what caused them to break up. John Lennon made some very bitter comments on that subject when I heard him being interviewed on NPR a few years ago. Thoughts?
 
Smile is the album that revived the Beach Boys career. It is still incredible that they were able to make a successful transition from surf rock.
 
It is thought by some that the Beatles might have produced the first rock album to gain critical acclaim. It's said that it was creative differences within the band over that very album is what caused them to break up. John Lennon made some very bitter comments on that subject when I heard him being interviewed on NPR a few years ago. Thoughts?

Yeah, John seemed to lean towards "garage-psychedelia" on Revolver.. basically garage rock with psychedelic subjects. Strawberry Fields Forever & the Moondogs were an extension of that. Paul's Revolver tracks were certainly more elaborate.. As well as the Pepperland album. It's hard to see one band making a coherent album in 1967 with those two on such different paths!

(OOC - John records Strawberry Fields Forever as a frantic rocking song in this TL, Think take 26 without the brass & string section)
 
Smile is the album that revived the Beach Boys career. It is still incredible that they were able to make a successful transition from surf rock.
I still find it interesting that they went for a more Stripped down sound for the follow-up.
 
Top