There was one Lennon/McCartney recording session in 1974 relating to the Lost Weekend.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1Mb7qwa2WM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1Mb7qwa2WM
The Beatles don't disband. Discuss.
- Thread starter Wevans1995
- Start date
If the Beatles had not disbanded I think they would still have pursued solo projects in the early 1970s at least. Lennon and Harrison had already released experimental solo albums in 1969, and Lennon also released three successful non-album singles (Give Peace a Chance, Cold Turkey, and Instant Karma!) before McCartney publicly announced the split of the band in April 1970. McCartney's self-titled debut solo album was released just one month later.
Like Genesis and the Rolling Stones during the 1980s and 1990s, I could see the four Beatles doing separate solo albums, tours and even film projects, and then reuniting every few years for new Beatles' album and world tour.
The frantic pace of their music-making and releases from 1962-70, plus their superstar fame, made the pressure of being the Beatles too much. Egos and drugs (which make people even more unreasonable to deal with) would have necessitated solo careers, so that periodic reunions would not be filled with unreasonable tension.
Like Genesis and the Rolling Stones during the 1980s and 1990s, I could see the four Beatles doing separate solo albums, tours and even film projects, and then reuniting every few years for new Beatles' album and world tour.
The frantic pace of their music-making and releases from 1962-70, plus their superstar fame, made the pressure of being the Beatles too much. Egos and drugs (which make people even more unreasonable to deal with) would have necessitated solo careers, so that periodic reunions would not be filled with unreasonable tension.
Last edited:
Indeed, that session is one of the reasons I think a reunion in 1973-1974 period, or at least a partial reunion, involving everyone but George Harrison, is vaguely possible. The big problem is Wings, and the question of whether McCartney would really be willing to set that group aside in that period, when the band is finally succeeding despite its initial rough start.
Last edited:
To keep the Beatles as a going concern, the most plausible idea I've seen on here is Harrison leaving - perhaps in the middle of the Get Back rehearsals, sticking with his original decision from OTL instead of changing his mind.
After George leaves, John & Paul may come to some sort of arrangement on the future direction of the band and if John cares enough to keep the Beatles going, he'll want to reassert HIS vision of what direction they should go.
After a year of Paul charting the direction (1967) and a rudderless 1968, why wouldn't he? Wasn't it his band to begin with??
Oh, and the challenge for George Harrison is keeping the success going AFTER the Bangladesh concert - Great as it was, he had a long time to get the songs for "All Things Must Pass" together.
If he forms a band with some other good songwriters around him - for collaboration and competition - it'll help his career no-end.
So who would else be in an early-70s Travelling Wilburys-type band?
Eric Clapton might have been willing to join a band with George Harrison. At the same time he was willing to work with John Lennon, which means he might be more inclined to join the Beatles in Harrison's absence. I think at least initially Harrison would want to be a solo artist but by 1973 historically Harrison wanted to form something of a supergroup. Alright it was basically the Beatles minus Paul McCartney and with Billy Preston, but still that counts in my book. If you are wondering why that did not happen, John Lennon hated the idea of being trapped in a band again. Still Harrison could always try to form a group with Clapton and Preston.
Oddly enough, this is actually one of the alternate history questions I've mulled over the most. Allow me to summarize my mental processes below:
First off, the best way to keep the Beatles together is to keep Brian Epstein alive. Lennon cited his death as the moment the band started to disintegrate. If he doesn't die, the Beatles can keep going for quite a while.
The question you have to ask is what immediate effects you would see from Epstein living. They had just released Sgt. Pepper, but were still six months away from Rishikesh. In fact, the trip to India was probably as much a result of Epstein's death as it was a result of John and (especially) George becoming more and more interested in Eastern mysticism. With(in) or without the Maharishi, that influence is going to be there anyway, but if the trip to Rishikesh doesn't happen, or at least happens very differently from OTL, then you've butterflied away the vast majority of the White Album, and bits of both Let It Be and Abbey Road, plus McCartney, All Things Must Pass, and Plastic Ono Band.
So, if Epstein doesn't die in '67, there's a possibility that a Beatles tour could happen the following summer (that being the infamous summer of '68), but it could just as likely not happen. None of the band were big on touring at that point; Paul was the most enthusiastic about it, George the least. A short transatlantic tour could happen, but nothing too large. If a tour doesn't happen in '68, then their '66 tour remains their last, at least through the end of the decade, possibly forever.
It's possible, albeit much tougher, to get the Beatles to stick together post-Epstein. Not having John get involved with Yoko is an obvious one, and something much discussed. It would work. A POD of Paul not meeting/marrying Linda is also interesting, but is an obvious nonstarter given how late into the whole break-up debacle it actually happened. (Incidentally, the first Beatle Yoko actually had contact with was Paul. A romantic involvement between the two of them, which was been rumored, albeit unsubstantiated, in the past, would be quite the wildcard for the whole situation.)
A lot of people forget that Get Back (which became Let It Be) was actually devised by Paul as a plan to get the Beatles on the road again. A full tour was vetoed early on by George; John was apathetic on the subject, mostly because he was on heroin, but he wasn't opposed to a performance or two. John (with the Plastic Ono Band and the Dirty Mac) and George (with Delaney and Bonnie) both performed live in 1969, so it's not as if they couldn't be arsed to do it if Paul was really persistent about it.
So, the second opportunity to have the band stick together is to have an actual show (as opposed to the rooftop concert) in the spring or summer of 1969, probably before work on Abbey Road got underway in earnest. Woodstock happened in just the right time that, if the Beatles had known about it and were all okay with the idea of playing live, they could have shown up. Their appearance at the festival would have not only floored the largest-ever assembly of hippies, but could have also improved internal morale to the point where they actually felt like a band again. It could have happened, but it didn't.
Despite all the crap that went down beforehand, the actual point of no return for the Beatles can be pegged down to an exact date -- September 13, 1969, the day when John Lennon flew to Toronto and performed with Yoko, Eric Clapton, Alan White, and Klaus Voormann as the Plastic Ono Band. In theory, keeping the Beatles together for a while longer is as simple as having John sprain his ankle on the 12th, or just decide to sleep in. Exactly one week later (the 20th), he went into a meeting at Apple Corps headquarters and told Paul and Ringo that he was quitting the band; the Plastic Ono Band tearing up Toronto was almost certainly a prime cause for him doing so. By this time, the break-up was inevitable, but it could be at least delayed by not having John play in Toronto.
In the late summer of 1969, probably late August or early September, John Lennon offered his song "Cold Turkey" to the other Beatles as a potential single. McCartney and Harrison were indifferent about it, and that probably helped galvanize Lennon's belief that no one in the band was "getting" him. If McCartney liked the song, then it could be a Beatles single, released either shortly after Abbey Road (late October), or later in the year (mid-December) for the Christmas market. My guess is that it would have been backed by McCartney's song "Back Seat of My Car", which he was working on during the Get Back sessions, and probably the Abbey Road sessions as well. Other alternatives are (from McCartney) "Another Day" or "Every Night", or (from George) "Isn't It a Pity" or "What Is Life". "All Things Must Pass" is a great song, but it's more album than single material.
And, of course, keeping George in is key, but giving him more album space is probably not as important as you might think. "Something" was an A-side, and that single is going to come out regardless of what happens in Toronto. He had done the soundtrack for the film Wonderwall in late 1967 (IIRC) and released a solo album, Electronic Sound in 1969 (IIRC again). He would, however, have at least three songs on a hypothetical "next" album. My picks would be "All Things Must Pass", "Wah-Wah", and either "Awaiting on You All" or "Isn't It a Pity" (depending on whether or not that last one is the B-side to "Cold Turkey").
When George quit during the Get Back sessions, John wanted to bring Eric Clapton in to replace him, possibly permanently (Cream had either just broken up or was about to break up). If that happens, all bets are off, but it's hard to tell how Paul and Ringo would have gone along with that.
First off, the best way to keep the Beatles together is to keep Brian Epstein alive. Lennon cited his death as the moment the band started to disintegrate. If he doesn't die, the Beatles can keep going for quite a while.
The question you have to ask is what immediate effects you would see from Epstein living. They had just released Sgt. Pepper, but were still six months away from Rishikesh. In fact, the trip to India was probably as much a result of Epstein's death as it was a result of John and (especially) George becoming more and more interested in Eastern mysticism. With(in) or without the Maharishi, that influence is going to be there anyway, but if the trip to Rishikesh doesn't happen, or at least happens very differently from OTL, then you've butterflied away the vast majority of the White Album, and bits of both Let It Be and Abbey Road, plus McCartney, All Things Must Pass, and Plastic Ono Band.
So, if Epstein doesn't die in '67, there's a possibility that a Beatles tour could happen the following summer (that being the infamous summer of '68), but it could just as likely not happen. None of the band were big on touring at that point; Paul was the most enthusiastic about it, George the least. A short transatlantic tour could happen, but nothing too large. If a tour doesn't happen in '68, then their '66 tour remains their last, at least through the end of the decade, possibly forever.
It's possible, albeit much tougher, to get the Beatles to stick together post-Epstein. Not having John get involved with Yoko is an obvious one, and something much discussed. It would work. A POD of Paul not meeting/marrying Linda is also interesting, but is an obvious nonstarter given how late into the whole break-up debacle it actually happened. (Incidentally, the first Beatle Yoko actually had contact with was Paul. A romantic involvement between the two of them, which was been rumored, albeit unsubstantiated, in the past, would be quite the wildcard for the whole situation.)
A lot of people forget that Get Back (which became Let It Be) was actually devised by Paul as a plan to get the Beatles on the road again. A full tour was vetoed early on by George; John was apathetic on the subject, mostly because he was on heroin, but he wasn't opposed to a performance or two. John (with the Plastic Ono Band and the Dirty Mac) and George (with Delaney and Bonnie) both performed live in 1969, so it's not as if they couldn't be arsed to do it if Paul was really persistent about it.
So, the second opportunity to have the band stick together is to have an actual show (as opposed to the rooftop concert) in the spring or summer of 1969, probably before work on Abbey Road got underway in earnest. Woodstock happened in just the right time that, if the Beatles had known about it and were all okay with the idea of playing live, they could have shown up. Their appearance at the festival would have not only floored the largest-ever assembly of hippies, but could have also improved internal morale to the point where they actually felt like a band again. It could have happened, but it didn't.
Despite all the crap that went down beforehand, the actual point of no return for the Beatles can be pegged down to an exact date -- September 13, 1969, the day when John Lennon flew to Toronto and performed with Yoko, Eric Clapton, Alan White, and Klaus Voormann as the Plastic Ono Band. In theory, keeping the Beatles together for a while longer is as simple as having John sprain his ankle on the 12th, or just decide to sleep in. Exactly one week later (the 20th), he went into a meeting at Apple Corps headquarters and told Paul and Ringo that he was quitting the band; the Plastic Ono Band tearing up Toronto was almost certainly a prime cause for him doing so. By this time, the break-up was inevitable, but it could be at least delayed by not having John play in Toronto.
In the late summer of 1969, probably late August or early September, John Lennon offered his song "Cold Turkey" to the other Beatles as a potential single. McCartney and Harrison were indifferent about it, and that probably helped galvanize Lennon's belief that no one in the band was "getting" him. If McCartney liked the song, then it could be a Beatles single, released either shortly after Abbey Road (late October), or later in the year (mid-December) for the Christmas market. My guess is that it would have been backed by McCartney's song "Back Seat of My Car", which he was working on during the Get Back sessions, and probably the Abbey Road sessions as well. Other alternatives are (from McCartney) "Another Day" or "Every Night", or (from George) "Isn't It a Pity" or "What Is Life". "All Things Must Pass" is a great song, but it's more album than single material.
And, of course, keeping George in is key, but giving him more album space is probably not as important as you might think. "Something" was an A-side, and that single is going to come out regardless of what happens in Toronto. He had done the soundtrack for the film Wonderwall in late 1967 (IIRC) and released a solo album, Electronic Sound in 1969 (IIRC again). He would, however, have at least three songs on a hypothetical "next" album. My picks would be "All Things Must Pass", "Wah-Wah", and either "Awaiting on You All" or "Isn't It a Pity" (depending on whether or not that last one is the B-side to "Cold Turkey").
When George quit during the Get Back sessions, John wanted to bring Eric Clapton in to replace him, possibly permanently (Cream had either just broken up or was about to break up). If that happens, all bets are off, but it's hard to tell how Paul and Ringo would have gone along with that.
Last edited:
Eric Clapton. Maybe Ginger Baker, too. Even Bob Dylan is still a possibility (he did go electric some years prior). Stylistically everything would be... different (harder? dirtier?) than the Wilburys, though, as that's what was going around at the time. Hell, you can assemble a decent line-up just from the people that played for Bangladesh. George Harrison, Eric Clapton, Bob Dylan, Klaus Voormann, and possibly Billy Preston could have been a hell of a band. With drums from either Ringo or Jim "Buster Sidebury" Keltner.
An easier way to solve the problem of George's solo career is to have him join either Blind Faith or Derek and the Dominoes. Most people don't realize that Derek and the Dominoes actually backed George for about half of the All Things Must Pass album. You could take half the songs from that album, maybe a few songs Clapton and Jim Gordon were working on at the time, and there you have a second Derek and the Dominoes album.
oberdada
Gone Fishin'
If we go further back, what about a POD in which Brian Wilson doesn't throw the towel and the Beatles vs. Beach Boys production race goes on and on and on....?
So instaed of Rubber Soul - PetSounds - St. Peppers, abandoned Smile...
it might be Rubber Soul - Pet Sounds - a St. Peppers/ Smile tie - followed by a late '67/ early '68 production race, resulting in differnt band dynamics...
So instaed of Rubber Soul - PetSounds - St. Peppers, abandoned Smile...
it might be Rubber Soul - Pet Sounds - a St. Peppers/ Smile tie - followed by a late '67/ early '68 production race, resulting in differnt band dynamics...
Last edited:
The Beatles, image wise, on stage and in the media, as Brian Epstein saw it, were John, Paul, George and Ringo. Behind that facade, in the studio, as George Martin saw it, the Beatles were Lennon and McCartney. Music wise, it could always and only be those two. Harrison realized this early on, which no doubt contributed to his bitterness and his desire to move on. But even after Epstein's death, his image what was embedded into the public's minds and therefore the removal of one of those units, for whatever reasons, meant the end of the band.
That would at least give them a little more musical competition, but it doesn't solve any of the problems caused by Epstein's death, such as the fact that the White Album is basically 2-3 solo albums on two LPs. If Epstein still dies, and the Rishikesh retreat (which logically follows from Epstein's death) still happens, then the White Album is going to happen. The Beatles are still going to be drifting apart personally and musically. Keep in mind that Paul was the only Beatle who was really actively influenced by Pet Sounds. George was lost in tablas and sitars at the time, John was on acid (and also Yoko), and Ringo was Ringo.
That said, if you can come up with PoD that not only keeps Epstein alive but also results in a more active/competitive Beach Boys, who choose not to abandon Smile, then who knows what would have happened? Epstein killed himself (intentionally or not) largely because he was afraid the Beatles were going to replace him with Dick James or Andrew Oldham or somebody (Klein was even a possibility at that point, given that he took over the Stones from Oldham in '65). If Epstein doesn't die in '67, and the Beatles decide to tour in '68 (potentially because of increased competition stateside) in support of whatever White Album stand-in gets made, and don't ditch him, then he has new reason to live and the band can go on.
My understanding is that that is exactly the feeling Paul and Ringo expressed to John when he suggested bringing Clapton in. They would have been resistant at first, no question, but after a few sessions they may have warmed up to the idea. Their public image wasn't nearly as important to them in 1969 as it was in 1964, given that they had been hiding in the studio for going on three years.
I think saying "If Epstein hadn't died, they'd still be together" is a little symplistic. Brian Epstein had a great mind for promotion & flair, but he made some crummy business decisions that cost the Beatles in the long run.
As the band members mature & think more in the long-term, they may ask questions about his business dealings - or hear about other bands getting better deals from more business savvy management - what then?
As far as the Beach Boys go, the easiest POD is for Brian Wilson to
give up drugs COMPLETELY early on - say, after a bad trip in early 1966?.
It doesn't HAVE to change the music - at the same time Frank Zappa was composing bizarre stuff on nothing more powerful than coffee & nicotine.
Without the drugs Brian may be more likely to stand-up the forces working against Smile. He had the will to throw his own father out of the studio in 1965 during the 'Help Me Rhonda' sessions, so firing Mike Love (for instance) is possible, had drugs not undermined his confidence.
Actually, you could have a timeline where Brian gives up drugs and the Beach Boys become THE progressive pop band of the late 1960s, while the John Lennon falls to his death from the Abbey Road studio roof during recording sessions in early 1967, the Beatles break-up & Sgt Pepper becomes a famous unfinished album.
(in OTL George Martin innocently takes Lennon to the roof for some fresh air when he sees him feeling a little ill - When McCartney found out where they'd gone, he rushed up to bring them downstairs - John was on a bad acid trip and might jump off and try to fly!)
oberdada
Gone Fishin'
Brian giving up drugs early would be really great...
But I don't think firing Mike Love is really an option, unless the bands follows the Beatles lead an gives up touring...
Van Dyke Parks and Mike Love didn't really get along. Love wanted Parks to explain his lyrics and Park replied that he didn't know what there where about, but Mike Love would have been the one to actually sing them on stage. So I can see his point.
They also had troubles with their recording company.
And, though it breaks my heart, I must admit from the known Smile recordings, the album would have been a masterpiece , but likely still a comercial failure.
And I don't even think about John Lennon jumping from a roof...
Unless...
could this somehow lead to Paul McCartney and Brian Wilson forming a supergroup in 69?
maybe even with other former Beatles and Beach Boys?
George Harrison probably wouldn't be interested.
Denis Wilson might move up front, leaving the drums to Ringo.
Carl Wilson on guitar and Bruce Johnston filling in for Brian on most concerts.
Finally together with a full time bass player: Paul McCartney...
A man can dream....
I didn't say they'd *still* be together, but had Epstein not died, they would have stuck together longer. John Lennon said pretty much the same thing.
Really the problem isn't Epstein's death itself, but what happens afterward, primarily the issue of Allen Klein, and Paul not accepting him as manager. That, more than Yoko, Linda, and the Get Back sessions put together, is really why they broke up. So the easiest way to avoid that is to not let Epstein die, though I agree it's not a guarantee for anything. Butterflies could just as easily force Ringo's or George's hand in '68, during the making of a White Album analogue, and have one of them quit the band for good.
Ah, yes, I had forgotten about that story, but it might be something interesting to explore. If Lennon dies and Pepper never gets released, probably the Hippie movement as we know it becomes fundamentally different (less flowery, perhaps more militant without the Beatles' "All You Need Is Love" mentality guiding things).
Fair point. Epstein living on past 1967 may slow the breakup then - he'd certainly be handy to have around for Magical Mystery Tour. I can imagine him STRONGLY advising Paul to get a proper scriptwriter & director on the project, for a start..
After that, I can see Brian trying to get the Beatles to play some sort of concert in 1968 - He didn't have that much to do when the band was studio-bound.
A live show might actually help band unity if the setting is right - perhaps a "live in the studio" performance to produce a concert film.. or a "secret" gig at some underground club, in front of an audience that won't scream?
http://www.feelnumb.com/2009/08/23/john-lennons-acid-trip-on-the-abbey-road-roof/
It sounds like it could easily have ended badly.
I feel like doing a DBWI on this. Watch this space.
Two Possible Scenarios
The first one is very Alien Space Batsy.
It presupposes that in OTL Paul really did die in 1966 in a car crash and the man we think of as Paul is what those who believe in this "Paul is Dead" stuff call "the Imposter." This ASB thinking says the main problem the Beatles had in the late 60s was the Imposter trying to take over the band and the other three never having positive feelings towards him and being totally surprised by his talent. They expected him to be just a bassist and back up singer and instead he wrote number one hits.
So the ASB scenario is that the real Paul survived the car accident. The other Beatles then never have a resentment of Paul, he doesn't become the prima dona the Imposter does in our timeline and they are able to keep working together. Of course another aspect of this very ASB TL is that the Imposter is still out there, a very talented man who doesn't get plastic surgery to look like McCartney and can pursue a career under his own name. Some "Paul is Dead" fans say the Imposter was named Billy Shears! lol
A more realistic TL is that a third possible new manager besides Klein and Eastman exists ITTL who in OTL died in his crib. This manager is acceptable to McCartney and Lennon, so they don't have the manager fight. Although this doesn't change the fact that Lennon says after Abbey Road, "I want a divorce," it does change the growing dissension between the Beatles, especially if the new manager is able to thread the needle of the Get Back tapes in a way that makes all the band members happy.
This could mean that John's original intent, to not record together as a band anymore but officially remain the Beatles becomes a reality as Paul doesn't feel forced to take legal action. In 1970 a Beatles album is released of material that recording-wise is solo material. This isn't actually new since they'd already done that going back to Yesterday. What's new is the entire album is like that, plus solo albums are released too. Billy Preston, Eric Clapton, Klaus Voorman and Leon Russell all work with them in recording the material and in various solo performances. So the Beatles still exist de jure. John quitting in late 1969 was not a new thing. What was new was the legal problems of the band making that an irreversible reality when Paul sued.
If the band could remain together de jure it leaves open the door for John to later change his mind and be interested in recording with the others again, since he isn't locked into it and still has his freedom to not do so. Meanwhile George's resentment to Paul would be reduced due to no legal feud and due to his being able to release his own solo material. Don't forget that George was as upset with John about being kept down as he was with Paul, but he was able to let that go with John once he had solo success. What was the difference? It can't be that the musical feud with Paul was worse, after all John and George exchange punches during the White Album sessions. The difference was there was an bitter legal feud with Paul. Without that it is likely that George would have gotten past it with Paul as he did with John.
So in this scenario a 1970 album could very well be a compilation of songs that were solo material in OTL in 1970 and 1971. By 1971 the divergence makes it so we can't just take material from later 1971 and figure it would be in a "Beatles" album. It would be unknown whether they'd actually record together by then or not and how this change would affect their creative output. How the 70s would have looked without an official legal breakup but an actual breakup is up for grabs.
By the way, in OTL John once said in the early 70s that if fans wanted a Beatles album they should just take songs from their solo work and put them together on a tape. I liked that idea and in Itunes created my own playlist of 1970 material as a Beatles album I called "Ripe"...the apple is red so it's ripe... and one as a 1971 album I called "Easy"...it has Imagine with it's lyric of "It's easy if you try" and Ringo's (George's) song "It Don't Come Easy." It's actually a lot of fun to listen to these playlists. Somehow the juxtaposition of the songs with other former Beatle's songs does create a "Beatlesque" experience for me.
The first one is very Alien Space Batsy.
It presupposes that in OTL Paul really did die in 1966 in a car crash and the man we think of as Paul is what those who believe in this "Paul is Dead" stuff call "the Imposter." This ASB thinking says the main problem the Beatles had in the late 60s was the Imposter trying to take over the band and the other three never having positive feelings towards him and being totally surprised by his talent. They expected him to be just a bassist and back up singer and instead he wrote number one hits.
So the ASB scenario is that the real Paul survived the car accident. The other Beatles then never have a resentment of Paul, he doesn't become the prima dona the Imposter does in our timeline and they are able to keep working together. Of course another aspect of this very ASB TL is that the Imposter is still out there, a very talented man who doesn't get plastic surgery to look like McCartney and can pursue a career under his own name. Some "Paul is Dead" fans say the Imposter was named Billy Shears! lol
A more realistic TL is that a third possible new manager besides Klein and Eastman exists ITTL who in OTL died in his crib. This manager is acceptable to McCartney and Lennon, so they don't have the manager fight. Although this doesn't change the fact that Lennon says after Abbey Road, "I want a divorce," it does change the growing dissension between the Beatles, especially if the new manager is able to thread the needle of the Get Back tapes in a way that makes all the band members happy.
This could mean that John's original intent, to not record together as a band anymore but officially remain the Beatles becomes a reality as Paul doesn't feel forced to take legal action. In 1970 a Beatles album is released of material that recording-wise is solo material. This isn't actually new since they'd already done that going back to Yesterday. What's new is the entire album is like that, plus solo albums are released too. Billy Preston, Eric Clapton, Klaus Voorman and Leon Russell all work with them in recording the material and in various solo performances. So the Beatles still exist de jure. John quitting in late 1969 was not a new thing. What was new was the legal problems of the band making that an irreversible reality when Paul sued.
If the band could remain together de jure it leaves open the door for John to later change his mind and be interested in recording with the others again, since he isn't locked into it and still has his freedom to not do so. Meanwhile George's resentment to Paul would be reduced due to no legal feud and due to his being able to release his own solo material. Don't forget that George was as upset with John about being kept down as he was with Paul, but he was able to let that go with John once he had solo success. What was the difference? It can't be that the musical feud with Paul was worse, after all John and George exchange punches during the White Album sessions. The difference was there was an bitter legal feud with Paul. Without that it is likely that George would have gotten past it with Paul as he did with John.
So in this scenario a 1970 album could very well be a compilation of songs that were solo material in OTL in 1970 and 1971. By 1971 the divergence makes it so we can't just take material from later 1971 and figure it would be in a "Beatles" album. It would be unknown whether they'd actually record together by then or not and how this change would affect their creative output. How the 70s would have looked without an official legal breakup but an actual breakup is up for grabs.
By the way, in OTL John once said in the early 70s that if fans wanted a Beatles album they should just take songs from their solo work and put them together on a tape. I liked that idea and in Itunes created my own playlist of 1970 material as a Beatles album I called "Ripe"...the apple is red so it's ripe... and one as a 1971 album I called "Easy"...it has Imagine with it's lyric of "It's easy if you try" and Ringo's (George's) song "It Don't Come Easy." It's actually a lot of fun to listen to these playlists. Somehow the juxtaposition of the songs with other former Beatle's songs does create a "Beatlesque" experience for me.
Asharella, please can you post your track listings for 'ripe' and 'easy'?
Edit: Just realised the tracks are listed on the records, my bad.
Edit: Just realised the tracks are listed on the records, my bad.