Harrison quits-in 1966.

Since Norton has mentioned this scenario in a couple threads, I thought the scenario was worth discussing on its own. Now this isn't as easy to pull off as having him stay away in 1969, but let's say Harrison does it despite Epstein's protestations. Before 1967 rolls around, George Harrison is no longer Beatle-George. How does Harrison's departure alter the Pepper period and beyond? Do the Beatles still meet the Maharishi? Does the truncated trio last longer than they did, or does the added pressure cause an earlier split. How would Harrison be viewed by the other members in the band-I presume that he'd still get along with Starkey, but other than that I'm not sure. Oh, and what does Harrison do out of the group exactly? Can the Beatles even make it to 1969 if one member goes solo then, or would Harrison leaving simply give Lennon ideas?
 
Since Norton has mentioned this scenario in a couple threads, I thought the scenario was worth discussing on its own. Now this isn't as easy to pull off as having him stay away in 1969, but let's say Harrison does it despite Epstein's protestations. Before 1967 rolls around, George Harrison is no longer Beatle-George. How does Harrison's departure alter the Pepper period and beyond? Do the Beatles still meet the Maharishi? Does the truncated trio last longer than they did, or does the added pressure cause an earlier split. How would Harrison be viewed by the other members in the band-I presume that he'd still get along with Starkey, but other than that I'm not sure. Oh, and what does Harrison do out of the group exactly? Can the Beatles even make it to 1969 if one member goes solo then, or would Harrison leaving simply give Lennon ideas?

Hmm.. was Harrison good friends with Clapton in 1966?
He may have offered his mate another option for exiting the Bluesbreakers...

Meanwhile, I would say the remaning Beatles would stick together for one more album at least. A lot then would depend on whether Brian Epstein dies as in OTL not too long after the album is out.. If he still dies, and Harrison is having some success then there's 2 very compelling reasons for John to leave too.
 
Harrison's friendship with Donovan might lead to a collaboration there. An idea that's been intriguing me this week. So now we might have a Harrison, Clapton, Donovan supergroup with some stiff on drums (sorry drummers :p). Sunshine Superman, Within Without You etc on the same album? Might rival McCartney's Sgt Pepper project.

As for the Beatles Sgt Pepper or a similar project still occurs, perhaps with less Eastern leanings. More old world influence thanks to Paul McCartney and his sentamental ideas. There was a general trend towards adopting British Victorian chic at that time (Ray Davies and Syd Barrett works for example) so any reference to India by the remaining Beatles would probably from a rose tinted Imperialist point of view. The Beatles would carry on without George I reckon. Who'd replace him though?

Denny Laine of course.
 
Last edited:
Would the Beatles replace George at all? Remember, this is the studio era. It isn't as if they need someone to play guitar live. Paul McCartney is an excellent guitar player. And through the magic of multiple takes and overdubs McCartney could easily play both guitar and bass, as his first two solo albums proved. After all, The Ballad of John and Yoko was literally recorded by just Lennon and McCartney, and having Ringo to do the drums probably makes things a bit easier. When George briefly quit in 1969, McCartney was insistent that no one be brought in to take his place. (Lennon in contrast wanted Clapton to join them.) So I can see McCartney keeping that stance as long as the studio era lasts. Of course, I think eventually McCartney is going to want to go on tour/perform again. And presuming the band hasn't broke up by that point, McCartney's tune on a new member will probably change for practical reasons.

The real question mark for me is the Maharishi, if the rest of the group doesn't go to India, it's very difficult to tell what the Beatles would have done in 1968.
 
It would be interesting if Ringo jumped ship too, and joined a Harrison/Clapton band (let's refer to it as HCB in short).

I honestly don't think that Ringo would jump ship to the HCB. At least not right away.

Sure, if tensions between McCartney & Lennon surface earlier that might encourage him, especially if the HCB is doing well in 1967.

I wonder what the Beatles do after their summer 1967 album?

If that album was basically like Sgt Pepper stripped of the Indian influence - with a fair number of McCartney toe-tappers, would there be a trade-off with the next album being more stripped-back and raw at the insistance of Lennon?

An aside: I heard that one of Brian Epstein's favourite albums in 1967 was the Velvet Underground's debut album. What if Lennon really used it as inspiration and the next album after Sgt Pepper either sounded like that album or it's more violent fuzz-and-feedback drenched follow-up? ("thought we'd gone strange, huh?? Well TRY THIS!")
 
Honestly, I suspect the version of Pepper we get simply has Strawberry Fields Forever and Penny Lane on it. They came close enough to putting those songs on the album, and with George gone, they have a kind of excuse for putting two songs from a single on the album. After all, Within You Without You is about five minutes long, which means adding those two songs won't take anymore space. Of course they could stick to their no singles on the album idea, but honestly Pepper would be better off with SFF and Penny Lane on the album. Richard Starkey was on good terms with pretty much everyone in the band. So he's the least likely to hold a grudge against Harrison. But he probably stays with the Beatles until Lennon and McCartney go their separate ways, if that happens in this timeline. However, I don't think we can rule out Ringo contributing to a Harrison album while remaining in the Beatles.
 
Top