The Beatles don't disband. Discuss.

[Wevans1995]

Albums?
Songs?
Events?

I think a 1971 Album would have more George Harrison Material than previous ones.

A 1971 album could feature songs from McCartney, Ram, John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band and All Things Must Pass. Also Ringos song would probably be 'It Don't Come Easy'.

 

[Glass Onion]

This is hard, but I assume you realize the extreme difficulty of pulling this off. I cannot think of any divergence that would allow for the band to continue to record, past 1969, without interruption. The real problem here, is John Lennon. You have to explain why he wants to remain in the group past the point he left historically. The other two can leave, but once Lennon's done with the Beatles, the band is finished, and the same would probably go for McCartney. However, McCartney would have been much more willing to sustain the group by all accounts, had that been a genuine possibility. However, if you go further back, the Beatles might have lasted longer. But of course then, it's impossible to predict what they'd be like in the seventies, because you'd have to change at least aspects of what they were in the sixties. For example, Geoff Emerick made a pretty good case that the turning point for the band was their trip to India, that they emerged from that visit far more divided than they had been before. If his account is accurate, you might save the band by delaying or preventing those trips. But if that happens, you have to account for 1968, because almost none of the songs on the White Album will be written. I can't think of a way to sustain the group with a divergence in 1969. Sure, you could have McCartney approve Cold Turkey as a single, and that might prevent Lennon from leaving in 1969, but eventually, a split would happen.

 

[Wevans1995]

A more pleasant time during the Let It Be recording sessions could have eased tensions a little. Also going on tour again (As John did with the Plastic Ono Band) might have helped rekindle their passion for the band. If Phil Spectors changes to Let It Be were never made, Paul might never have taken the plunge and quit. Also Allen Klein not being appointed manager and Brian Epstein not dying in '67 would have helped keep the band together, John not insisting on having Yoko in the studio whilst recording and probably a few more reasons I cant think of.

I'm not disagreeing, just trying to think of a few scenarios that would of keot them together a little longer.
Perhaps if John and George hadn't died a reunion could have been possible.

 

[Glass Onion]

A more pleasant time during the Let It Be recording sessions could have eased tensions a little. Also going on tour again (As John did with the Plastic Ono Band) might have helped rekindle their passion for the band. If Phil Spectors changes to Let It Be were never made, Paul might never have taken the plunge and quit. Also Allen Klein not being appointed manager and Brian Epstein not dying in '67 would have helped keep the band together, John not insisting on having Yoko in the studio whilst recording and probably a few more reasons I cant think of.

I'm not disagreeing, just trying to think of a few scenarios that would of keot them together a little longer.
Perhaps if John and George hadn't died a reunion could have been possible.

Arguably, the band was on the verge of a split during the White Album sessions, but the Let It Be sessions certainly made the situation worse. You probably need McCartney to drop the whole idea of a documentary to make those sessions marginally more pleasant for the rest of the group. But then you run into the question of what the third film would be. Regarding touring, Lennon and Harrison did not want to tour with the Beatles after 1966, it took a lot to have the roof top concert. So touring isn't really a solution, because if Lennon and Harrison are willing to go on tour with McCartney, that means a lot of other problems have been fixed first. Reunion is much more likely than sustained membership. If you want this to happen, the big impediment are John Lennon and to a lesser extent George Harrison. If you can alter circumstances so that the two of them want the Beatles to exist in the 1970's, then the Beatles will exist in the 1970's. It's just that there's no easy way to cause that change of heart.

I know, I probably sound pessimistic here, but I am honestly open to the idea of the band continuing on. It's just that there isn't really an easy divergence to do this. Saving Brian Epstein might help, but then, that's a divergence in 1967, which alters a lot by 1969. Which means it's harder to predict what the Beatles in the 1970's would sound like.

 

[Glass Onion]

Although, come to think of it, even keeping the band together, at all, will dramatically alter their 1970's output. For example, I do not think McCartney will produce the same material if he's still in the Beatles. And Lennon might never go to therapy here, which alters his output between 1970-1971 considerably.

 

[flippikat]

That's damn near impossible with George & John particularly having so many issues with the state of band politics.

George could possibly be placated by allowing him more songs on the albums - but you also have to change Paul & John's attitude towards him. Get them to regard him more as an equal and not a "little brother" and it helps.

I think the Maharishi episode actually didn't help George - at a time when he could have assumed some power in the band. The Rishikesh fiasco out surely must've knocked his credibility as far as Paul & John were concerned.

If they never fell under the spell of the Maharishi & went off to camp, it might make George's position stronger by 1969.

As far as John is concerned, how "far out" could he go while still keeping in the confines of The Beatles? Sure, he managed to get Revolution 9 on the White Album - though there's not much from those sessions that DIDN'T make it on the final cut - even snippets like Wild Honey Pie & the uncredited "Can You Take Me Back?" were included!

The Beatles COULD record 'Cold Turkey', but as a way of selling the idea to Paul maybe John could suggest making it one track of a dark 'themed' album about the downside of psychedelia, recorded as 'live' as possible - sort of a cross between the original 'Get Back' album concept and the gloominess of the Plastic Ono Band album.

 

[mattep74]

If Lennon hadnt been shot dead they might a made a comback on Live aid

 

[Maponus]

Something like this.

 

[The Ubbergeek]

I may get thugged for that, but how about CHANGING or DIFFERENT members? That count?

Say, for the 'unity of the band', one of the 'sides' do a 'coup', get a pal to replace X ousted....

 

[Wevans1995]

Something like this.

I Love this sketch

 

[Stéphane Dumas]

I may get thugged for that, but how about CHANGING or DIFFERENT members? That count?

Say, for the 'unity of the band', one of the 'sides' do a 'coup', get a pal to replace X ousted....

Good point, the Beach Boys, the Rolling Stones had changed members over the years.

I spotted that article from 2010 of the Toronto Star.
http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/music/article/855344--what-if-the-beatles-had-just-let-it-be

“Had they not broken up,” Keightley says, “it’s possible the respect that’s given them might have been more eroded. Perhaps they would have been a target of punk music and things might have been slightly different because they would not have been deified as quickly or as massively in the ’70s and ’80s.”

It’s like this. To become The Beatles — the formidable cultural entity — they needed to stop being The Beatles — the flawed human aggregate of four guys succumbing to the pressures of fame, fatigue and paralyzing expectations. They are what they are because they quit when they did.

But the wondering isn’t entirely unwarranted. Bowman, for one, hears a number of portents of what might have been in The Beatles’ final studio sessions.

“I’m sure they would have toured,” he speculates. “That would have transformed their legacy substantially. They would have had to get their chops back together as live players, which they had let slip because nobody could hear them and nobody cared anyway, which was one reason they stopped touring.

“It might have led to simpler, back-to-rock-’n’-roll material, it might have led to ever-evolving, complicated stuff. I’m not saying they would have made records like Close to the Edge by Yes, but I think the Abbey Road suite, that’s pointing in a similar kind of direction. And look at the solo material, Harrison’s All Things Must Pass, Lennon’s Plastic Ono Band and Imagine, the first two McCartney albums. Great records.”

“One might even argue,” Bowman says, “that the deterioration one saw in Paul and John and George’s solo songwriting might not have happened if they had been editing each other. Who can tell Paul McCartney it’s not good enough except for John or George or Ringo? No one’s going to tell him that. Likewise for any of them.”

Back to rock ’n’ roll? Beatlesque prog rock? Fab Four disco? These possibilities point to yet another path: the one where The Beatles persist to the point of parody.

If they had continued and stepped into the disco era, would the Beatles had composed most of the songs for the soundtrack of Saturday Night Fever instead of the Bee Gees?

 

[Tallest Skil]

Then they release Everyday Chemistry in 1982.

 

[Glass Onion]

That's damn near impossible with George & John particularly having so many issues with the state of band politics.

George could possibly be placated by allowing him more songs on the albums - but you also have to change Paul & John's attitude towards him. Get them to regard him more as an equal and not a "little brother" and it helps.

I think the Maharishi episode actually didn't help George - at a time when he could have assumed some power in the band. The Rishikesh fiasco out surely must've knocked his credibility as far as Paul & John were concerned.

If they never fell under the spell of the Maharishi & went off to camp, it might make George's position stronger by 1969.

As far as John is concerned, how "far out" could he go while still keeping in the confines of The Beatles? Sure, he managed to get Revolution 9 on the White Album - though there's not much from those sessions that DIDN'T make it on the final cut - even snippets like Wild Honey Pie & the uncredited "Can You Take Me Back?" were included!

The Beatles COULD record 'Cold Turkey', but as a way of selling the idea to Paul maybe John could suggest making it one track of a dark 'themed' album about the downside of psychedelia, recorded as 'live' as possible - sort of a cross between the original 'Get Back' album concept and the gloominess of the Plastic Ono Band album.

In my honest opinion, not to discount the contributions Harrison made to the group, but the Beatles can survive Harrison's departure much more readily than they can survive Lennon or McCartney's. If Harrison leaves, and John Lennon still wants there to be a band, then the Beatles will still exist. It's hard to imagine them not treating Harrison as a little brother, given that arguably at least Lennon continued to think of him in those terms after 1969. Though the problem here is not so much Lennon as McCartney. Harrison was willing to work with Lennon after the breakup as soon as 1971. He insisted that he would never again work with McCartney until anthology. Indeed, the most important element for a reunion is improving McCartney's relationship with everyone else in the band. Remember everyone else in the band actually did record a song together in the seventies, "I'm the Greatest" off the Ringo album.

Preventing their trip to India, if I read Geoff Emerick correctly, may be enough to save the group for a few more years. Before they left, there were a fairly unified group. Even when they were recording "Hey Bulldog" they were far more of a collective whole then they were during the White Album sessions and afterwards (though they at least sound like a unified group on Abbey Road). I do not know what happened in the trip to cause or at least hasten that shift.

Aside perhaps from Plastic Ono Band, in terms of tone, a lot of Lennon's solo work would not have been out of place on a Beatles record. Indeed, "Jealous Guy" and "Gimmee Some Truth" can trace their genesis to the Beatles period. True, Some Time In New York City is another exception to that. But my point is, Revolution 9 isn't really the Beatles song most comparable to Lennon's solo output. It is perhaps similar to things like "Life With the Lions" and "Two Virgins" and that sort of thing, but those kinds of albums never defined Lennon's output. "Yer Blues" is closer to how Lennon initially sounded as a solo artist than Revolution 9 is. I'm not saying that the quality between Lennon's solo work is the same as his work with the band, I am saying that tone isn't necessarily the problem here.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

The problem with the group is that by 1970, they'd grown as individuals immensely. It's not even ego, but just talent and quality. They'd grown so much as individuals that they could only get everything out that they wanted, and pursue what they wanted, as solo. That's the problem with Supergroups, and the Beatles had evolved into a borderline supergroup. The thing that held them together was that they knew each other, liked one another, had worked with one another, and had been together for a decade or more. The Beatles were even on the brink of breaking up in 1966 when they stopped touring. 1966 was a Hellish year for the group (look it all up if you're interested in all the crap that went on), and they'd gotten tired. Lennon was losing faith and reevaluating his priorities, and George Harrison was thinking of leaving after the Candlestick park performance. And they'd gotten tired of a lot of things about being Beatles, which is why they stopped touring. And music was also evolving around them as well. It was getting harder (for the time) and psychedelia was beginning, and critics weren't sure if the group would continue along with the trends and keep up. They did keep up, of course, and continue to set trends, and their solution to their problems was to quit touring. That kept them from splitting in 1966/1967. But what can they do for 1970? Paul's solution, with spearheading the idea for Let it Be, was to get back to an earlier, basic rock and to tour again, and rather than going forward, it was to recapture something previous, and it didn't work. The only place they thought they could go at that point was apart.

I think if you want to keep the Beatles together, you have a few options.
First, let them each release solo albums like the KISS band members did in 1978; technically stated to be Beatles albums, but really solo albums. And then, have everyone return to working with the group once they got that out of their system.
Two, disband the Beatles per OTL, but have them reunite later. They could have very well done this had Lennon not gotten back with Yoko after his lost weekend, or had Lennon not get shot and get back with them in the 80s. I could very well see the latter, since everyone from the 60s had sort of a strong second wind in the 80s.
Three, turn the Beatles into a secondary interest. Have everyone go solo per the OTL, but occasionally gather to release a Beatles album. Or, have both careers go on about equal.

I personally don't want them to stick together in the way most people think of just having them not split at all, because I think they'd be miserable. I think they needed at least a few years on their own and then a reunion.

 

[BillyShears]

Paul and John could grow a backbone and tell George to 'do one'
John gets Clapton in to replace George as he apparently remarked in a meeting
Paul, John and Ringo agree to Paul's original idea for Get Back turning up at random pubs and playing short gigs 'like the old days' finishing with a big gig atop the Apple building
John realises Paul was right all along, and they dump Allan Klein and replace him with the Eastman's - Apple gets turned around and becomes a success - John doesn't go into Primal Scream therapy
The Threetles continue into the 70s, George's success dries up after a botched album in 'Dark Horse' and his infamous tour of '74. The Threetles and George patch things up, though Harrison remains extremely bitter

Albums:
Get Back (1970)
A concept album, the world's first live album of original songs, spawned the hit singles 'Get Back', 'Instant Karma!' and 'Maybe I'm Amazed' whilst its companion film depicting the rebirth of the Beatles and the departure of Harrison won an Oscar.

Imagine (1971)
Following the success of Get Back, the Threetles decide to have a break, Paul retires to Scotland, whilst John goes travelling in New York becoming outraged by the Vietnam War. Paul and John return to the studio to rush-record 'Give Peace a Chance' which would be released as a single. The album that followed 'Imagine' would be one self-contained studio ballads and vignettes in a similar vein to 'Abbey Road' - the album would spawn the singles 'Imagine', 'Back Seat of My Car' and 'Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey'

Wildlife (1972)
After a successful appearances as Harrison's special guests at the Concert for Bangladesh - the olive branch seemed to work, Harrison offered Starr a song 'It Don't Come Easy' to sing. It looked like Harrison might consider a return, but now he was too busy riding off the success of his first album. 'Wildlife' would be designed to be the exact opposite of their previous album, replacing the studio perfection of Imagine would be the rollicking lo-fi of 'Wildlife', complete with the acoustic rock of 'Too Many People' and 'Crippled Inside', dreamy African-inspired 'Some People Never Know' along with the successful singles 'It Don't Come Easy' and the Lennon/McCartney bittersweet rocker 'A Love For You'.

Band on the Run (1973)
Upon the return to the studio in the winter of 1972/3, the Threetles appeared dissatisfied with their material, their leftover songs from previous sessions such as 'That Would Be Something' and 'Oh Yoko' were either unfinished or dissatisfactory, their new songs were also deemed not got enough including 'Hi Hi Hi' and 'Woman is the N***** of the World'. The result was a trip to Nigeria to soak up the atmosphere and write a few songs, Abbey Road was to be abandoned fully or the first time ever. The result was an empty and ill-equipped studio as well as run ins with the locals, however, the fruit of their burden would be massive. The fruit would be 'Band on the Run', their Sgt Pepper for a new decade, and it drew many parallels, the cover featuring famous people and its internal opening and closing reprise. Hits from the album included the opening 'Band on the Run' and 'Jet' as well as 'Out of the Blue'

 

[Stolengood]

I would just keep Alex Mardas from becoming a hanger-on; he's the one who spoiled things at Rishikesh, to begin with...

 

[Wevans1995]

Sooo... John not meeting Yoko (Or never going back to her after his Lost Weekend), never meeting 'Magic' Alex, never hiring Allen Klein and not going going to Rishikesh in the first place would have helped keep the band together.

Also I think kicking George out is a little harsh. IIRC Johns comment about bringing Eric Clapton in was when George had walked out during the Let it Be sessions (?) and I think he only said it to force him back. Besides, George and Clapton were good friends so I doubt he would agree to replace him. And anyway, it's not The Beatles without all four of them.

What about making Billy Preston an official Beatle. George brought him in to ease tensions during Let it Be.

 

[BillyShears]

Sooo... John not meeting Yoko (Or never going back to her after his Lost Weekend), never meeting 'Magic' Alex, never hiring Allen Klein and not going going to Rishikesh in the first place would have helped keep the band together.

Also I think kicking George out is a little harsh. IIRC Johns comment about bringing Eric Clapton in was when George had walked out during the Let it Be sessions (?) and I think he only said it to force him back. Besides, George and Clapton were good friends so I doubt he would agree to replace him. And anyway, it's not The Beatles without all four of them.

What about making Billy Preston an official Beatle. George brought him in to ease tensions during Let it Be.

That's true, Clapton probably would've turned the offer down... who would replace George?

Norman Smith was a link between the Beatles and Pink Floyd... how about David Gilmour?

Edit: it's just I think its impossible to keep them going with George, not only was he incredibly irate and bitter, and he had a double-albumsworth of songs that he'd lying about some of which allegedly since Revolver. You could try and get them to release solo projects at the same time, but George isn't going to want to come back considering he'd still have secondary status

 

[Glass Onion]

The problem with the group is that by 1970, they'd grown as individuals immensely. It's not even ego, but just talent and quality. They'd grown so much as individuals that they could only get everything out that they wanted, and pursue what they wanted, as solo. That's the problem with Supergroups, and the Beatles had evolved into a borderline supergroup. The thing that held them together was that they knew each other, liked one another, had worked with one another, and had been together for a decade or more. The Beatles were even on the brink of breaking up in 1966 when they stopped touring. 1966 was a Hellish year for the group (look it all up if you're interested in all the crap that went on), and they'd gotten tired. Lennon was losing faith and reevaluating his priorities, and George Harrison was thinking of leaving after the Candlestick park performance. And they'd gotten tired of a lot of things about being Beatles, which is why they stopped touring. And music was also evolving around them as well. It was getting harder (for the time) and psychedelia was beginning, and critics weren't sure if the group would continue along with the trends and keep up. They did keep up, of course, and continue to set trends, and their solution to their problems was to quit touring. That kept them from splitting in 1966/1967. But what can they do for 1970? Paul's solution, with spearheading the idea for Let it Be, was to get back to an earlier, basic rock and to tour again, and rather than going forward, it was to recapture something previous, and it didn't work. The only place they thought they could go at that point was apart.

I think if you want to keep the Beatles together, you have a few options.
First, let them each release solo albums like the KISS band members did in 1978; technically stated to be Beatles albums, but really solo albums. And then, have everyone return to working with the group once they got that out of their system.
Two, disband the Beatles per OTL, but have them reunite later. They could have very well done this had Lennon not gotten back with Yoko after his lost weekend, or had Lennon not get shot and get back with them in the 80s. I could very well see the latter, since everyone from the 60s had sort of a strong second wind in the 80s.
Three, turn the Beatles into a secondary interest. Have everyone go solo per the OTL, but occasionally gather to release a Beatles album. Or, have both careers go on about equal.

I personally don't want them to stick together in the way most people think of just having them not split at all, because I think they'd be miserable. I think they needed at least a few years on their own and then a reunion.

I more or less agree with this, with the caveat that the actual breakup could always be postponed by a year or so, given the right divergences. The band had all but broken up after the Get Back sessions, and yet Abbey Road happened. As Harrison himself said, they could have lasted a little while longer than they did, on the other hand, they could easily have broken up sooner.

I agree that a reunion is more likely than avoiding a breakup entirely. But there would have to be a few conditions met. Firstly, I think the first post Let it Be Beatles project would have to feel like a one-off project in order to have Lennon on board, as I do not think he would be happy to have a permanent reunion that represents the complete end of his solo career. Indeed, Harrison actually wanted Lennon, Starkey, and Billy Preston to form a band together in 73', and Lennon absolutely refused to do so. So as far as Lennon's concerned, at least from what I've read, "let's make an album" probably works better than, "Let's get the band together." Subtle distinction I know, and either of them are difficult given Lennon's personality.

Having George Harrison agree to reunite with Paul McCartney might be even harder, if we're talking about doing an album rather than a one-off concert. (Several attempts at which actually came close to happening. The closest one was 1979, Lennon backed away at the last minute because he felt that the concert promoter was earning too large a percentage of the profits, or something like that. So that concert could easily have happened. They were promising the Beatles a huge amount of money, Lennon said something like if they paid him that much, he'd willingly stand on his head for an hour and half. Point is, having a reunion concert is surprisingly easy after a few years, but does that really count for the purposes of this thread?)

The next problem we run into with a seventies reunion is Wings. The earliest I think Lennon would be willing to reunite would be during his lost weekend period, which is the period when Wings was arguably at the height of its popularity. Would McCartney really be willing to abandon his band right after Band on the Run? That's questionable.

 

[BillyShears]

I more or less agree with this, with the caveat that the actual breakup could always be postponed by a year or so, given the right divergences. The band had all but broken up after the Get Back sessions, and yet Abbey Road happened. As Harrison himself said, they could have lasted a little while longer than they did, on the other hand, they could easily have broken up sooner.

I agree that a reunion is more likely than avoiding a breakup entirely. But there would have to be a few conditions met. Firstly, I think the first post Let it Be Beatles project would have to feel like a one-off project in order to have Lennon on board, as I do not think he would be happy to have a permanent reunion that represents the complete end of his solo career. Indeed, Harrison actually wanted Lennon, Starkey, and Billy Preston to form a band together in 73', and Lennon absolutely refused to do so. So as far as Lennon's concerned, at least from what I've read, "let's make an album" probably works better than, "Let's get the band together." Subtle distinction I know, and either of them are difficult given Lennon's personality.

Having George Harrison agree to reunite with Paul McCartney might be even harder, if we're talking about doing an album rather than a one-off concert. (Several attempts at which actually came close to happening. The closest one was 1979, Lennon backed away at the last minute because he felt that the concert promoter was earning too large a percentage of the profits, or something like that. So that concert could easily have happened. They were promising the Beatles a huge amount of money, Lennon said something like if they paid him that much, he'd willingly stand on his head for an hour and half. Point is, having a reunion concert is surprisingly easy after a few years, but does that really count for the purposes of this thread?)

The next problem we run into with a seventies reunion is Wings. The earliest I think Lennon would be willing to reunite would be during his lost weekend period, which is the period when Wings was arguably at the height of its popularity. Would McCartney really be willing to abandon his band right after Band on the Run? That's questionable.

Lennon and May Pang were actually going to visit McCartney recording Venus & Mars in either Nashville or New Orleans - but Yoko coaxed John back.