McCartney-Harrison: A different ‘Get Back’?

[Lafayette_]

What if Paul and George mended their relationship as musicians sometime during the group’s stay in India (in other words: Paul started giving George more credit earlier in terms of songwriting), and the group went into the Get Back sessions with a different mindset?

Would we see an earlier incarnation of ‘The Threetles’ (Paul, George and Ringo), with Paul agreeing to record George’s catalogue? How would John’s “I want a divorce” announcement later in 1969 be taken?

Discuss!

 

[flippikat]

What if Paul and George mended their relationship as musicians sometime during the group’s stay in India (in other words: Paul started giving George more credit earlier in terms of songwriting), and the group went into the Get Back sessions with a different mindset?

Would we see an earlier incarnation of ‘The Threetles’ (Paul, George and Ringo), with Paul agreeing to record George’s catalogue? How would John’s “I want a divorce” announcement later in 1969 be taken?

Discuss!

This is a POD that's really intreguing.

As far as there were any allegiances between Paul-John-George within the Beatles, from what I gather John & Paul were closest in the early days (up to circa early/mid 1965 when they started writing more by themselves), then George & John appear to have been pretty close in 1965-67 (especially seeing eye-to-eye on disliking touring and liking LSD - clear differences from Paul) until John started falling into Yoko's orbit & George dropped LSD for meditation.

If Paul and George connect in 1968 and it sticks into the early 70s, that's a huge change to the group dynamic. Perhaps Paul has a really profound experience during the meditation retreat that makes him reconsider his workaholic, perfectionist, controlling tendencies.. and much more collaborative - and realising that George is coming up with quality songs that demand attention.

With respectful treatment & collaboration from Paul, George could be more likely to side with him whenever the big decisions come up - which could be interesting if John has firm contrary ideas of his own.

 

[flippikat]

Would we see an earlier incarnation of ‘The Threetles’ (Paul, George and Ringo), with Paul agreeing to record George’s catalogue? How would John’s “I want a divorce” announcement later in 1969 be taken?

To answer your questions, I think it's possible we could see the Threetles.. though if John actually *did* walk in this timeline, Ringo would be very torn between the two camps. I even think it might be even-money bet whether he stays with Paul and George or goes with John & Yoko.

Another scenario could be the Crosby/Stills/Nash/Young setup, where John ends up being like a Neil Young figure, floating in and out of Beatles projects as/when he feels like it. Say, John leaves in late 1969 to go pursue projects with Yoko.. then rejoins a couple of years later out of boredom, or missing the guys, or during a break from Yoko like OTL's "lost weekend".. then leaving again. ("We'll always have the door open for him, y'know", Paul would be quoted as saying, "It's really his band anyway.. ")

 

[Lafayette_]

Say, John leaves in late 1969 to go pursue projects with Yoko.. then rejoins a couple of years later out of boredom, or missing the guys, or during a break from Yoko like OTL's "lost weekend".. then leaving again. ("We'll always have the door open for him, y'know", Paul would be quoted as saying, "It's really his band anyway.. ")

Your last quote sounds so much like something Paul McCartney would say, it’s uncanny!

You do have a point when saying that it was his (John’s) band, since over the years that seems to be something that Paul came to terms with it (see his latest interview on Howard Stern, talking about the break up).

One argument you could make against Paul, George and Ringo carrying on is still the business side of things. Would John get royalties from the band? Would he want to disband it in name? Maybe the butterflies would lead Paul and George to form their own supergroup.

 

[flippikat]

You do have a point when saying that it was his (John’s) band, since over the years that seems to be something that Paul came to terms with it (see his latest interview on Howard Stern, talking about the break up).

One argument you could make against Paul, George and Ringo carrying on is still the business side of things. Would John get royalties from the band? Would he want to disband it in name? Maybe the butterflies would lead Paul and George to form their own supergroup.

John would have to be paid royalties on the Beatles albums he plays on - and for any songs he writes on Beatles albums, but they technically wouldn't have to pay him for albumsthey make without him.. maybe Paul, George & possibly Ringo as well form the nucleus of a new band (Ricky & the Red Streaks?), to contractually separate their work sans-John from the Beatles? Another option could be to pay John some kinda gratuity payment for albums where he's not involved, and full royalties on albums he actively, formally contributes to.

 

[RedBeetle]

If this were to happen, it would leave much room for a reunion down the line. A healthy friendship and writing partnership would've been the best thing they could've gotten at that time, if Paul were to see that George was writing quality songs, it could lead to an increase of George material for Get Back and Abbey Road (Maybe even "All Things Must Pass" gets on Get Back in TTL). The same thing with John and "wanting a divorce" would likely still happen since a George-Paul writing partnership wouldn't do much to fix that, but even if that still happens, George and Paul would likely still contribute to each others solo albums (and with the entire group not pitted against Paul, Ringo could have a stable working relationship with Paul in the early 70s) so we would see a lot more Beatles on each others solo work (Paul and Ringo on "All Things Must Pass", George on "Ram", all the Beatles on "Ringo!", etc.). And like I said earlier, with this in mind, a 70s Beatles reunion is much more possible. Maybe instead of only three Beatles playing on "I'm the Greatest" maybe it's a full reunion. But all in all, it would be better for the grup.

 

[tallthinkev]

Things in the studio should be more than ok, no infighting between Paul and John. Paul playing bass, guitar and keyboard, George guitar, bass and messing with his new Moog, as for Ringo carries on being one of the best drummers around. If/when they get back playing live then there is a problem, who do they get? Clapton is well known to all, could well be the man, then comes to whom is going to play keys. Don't thing Billy Preston is one the scene at this time, a bit out there but Georgie Fame?

 

[Lafayette_]

Here's a first attempt at a revised 'Let It Be' album, released in April 1970. I'll leave it to your imagination/own attempts as to what happens during the summer of 1969 (Abbey Road, Everest...?). The Beatles here are technically on hiatus - John goes to Toronto with Yoko and the Plastic Ono Band, does his Bed-Ins for peace, etc. He stops short of announcing he wants his 'divorce' from the Beatles in September 1969 - maybe saying something in the likes of "You do whatever you want - I'm not going to be here".

Key differences from OTL: 1) Paul doesn't push back at John's announcement, nor does he entertain the idea of quitting the band himself. 2) Paul also decides against hiring his father-in-law as the band's financial representative - whatever his decision ends up being, it is good enough for George to side with him. 3) The rest of the band ops for George Martin instead of Phil Spector or Glyn Johns to master the material recorded in January 1969. The idea of having a 'live', 'raw' album with limited studio-trickery is generally accepted, although with certain exceptions (think more 'Let It Be... Naked', but produced by George Martin in 1969 instead of Paul McCartney in 2003).

The Beatles - Let It Be
Apple Records - Released 30 April 1970
Producer: George Martin (with Paul McCartney and George Harrison)

Side 1
1. Get Back
2. For You Blue
3. All I Want Is You (Dig a Pony)
4. Art of Dying
5. Look at Me
6. Let It Down
7. Let It Be

Side 2
1. Teddy Boy
2. Don't Let Me Down
3. I, Me, Mine
4. I've Got a Feeling
5. Isn't It a Pity?
6. The Long and Winding Road
7. All Things Must Pass

The end result is somewhat somber - while the band practiced rock 'n' roll standards and their early club material during the Jan. 1969 sessions (same as OTL) -, the final album contains very little of that (perhaps for the best, considering the dubious quality of said sessions). The 'unplugged' aspect is kept in many of the songs. George strikes big with 6 songs of his own, although many of them collaborations with Paul in terms of instrumentation - Paul has 5 songs, and John gets 3.

 

[RedBeetle]

Here's my idea of a follow-up album for 1971, since John has largely detached himself from the band it leaves Paul, George, and Ringo to piece together an album with only two contributions from John.

The Beatles - Everest
Apple Records - Released May 17, 1971
Producer: The Beatles (Phil Spector on John's material)

Side 1
1. Maybe I'm Amazed
2. Ballad Of Sir Frankie Crisp (Let It Roll)
3. That Would Be Something
4. Hold On
5. Deep Blue
6. Dear Boy

Side 2
1. It Don't Come Easy
2. Oh My Love
3. Bangla Desh
4. Every Night
5. Apple Scruffs
6. The Back Seat of My Car

Singles:
It Don't Come Easy/ Every Night (US #11 / UK #7)
Maybe I'm Amazed/ Hold On (US #3 / UK #1)
Bangla Desh / Dear Boy (US #7 / UK #6)

My idea is that the album recieves good reviews but some critics are confused as to the little contributions from John on the album. This is the first self-produced album by the band which leads to a few more throughout the 70s. George gets a total of 4 songs, Paul gets 5 songs, John gets 2 songs, and Ringo gets 1 song. I imagine it being over-produced like Ram in OTL.

 

[SavoyTruffle]

I'd imagine in this scenario people would wonder at George getting more than his standard one song per side thing while John largely fades into the background.

Then I'd assume John's stuff with the Plastic Ono Band comes out and answers that question for most people.

Though there might be a contingent who'll replace "Paul is Dead" with "John is Dead".

 

[tallthinkev]

Here's my idea of a follow-up album for 1971, since John has largely detached himself from the band it leaves Paul, George, and Ringo to piece together an album with only two contributions from John.

The Beatles - Everest
Apple Records - Released May 17, 1971
Producer: The Beatles (Phil Spector on John's material)

Side 1
1. Maybe I'm Amazed
2. Ballad Of Sir Frankie Crisp (Let It Roll)
3. That Would Be Something
4. Hold On
5. Deep Blue
6. Dear Boy

Side 2
1. It Don't Come Easy
2. Oh My Love
3. Bangla Desh
4. Every Night
5. Apple Scruffs
6. The Back Seat of My Car

Singles:
It Don't Come Easy/ Every Night (US #11 / UK #7)
Maybe I'm Amazed/ Hold On (US #3 / UK #1)
Bangla Desh / Dear Boy (US #7 / UK #6)

My idea is that the album recieves good reviews but some critics are confused as to the little contributions from John on the album. This is the first self-produced album by the band which leads to a few more throughout the 70s. George gets a total of 4 songs, Paul gets 5 songs, John gets 2 songs, and Ringo gets 1 song. I imagine it being over-produced like Ram in OTL.

I'd take out Apple Scruffs or Back Seat of My Car and replace with Photograph

 

[RedBeetle]

I'd take out Apple Scruffs or Back Seat of My Car and replace with Photograph

Well I did that because Back Seat of My Car was debuted during the Get Back sessions and Apple Scruffs just feels like a Beatles song.