The Beatles never break up
- Thread starter Chrispi
- Start date
I'd think you'd need ASB for that to happen. But to answear your wuestion I think that they'd get more and more experimential and progressive, maybe getting intp the progressive rock genre, eh? I can also imagine a name change if their later music is to different form that of the early days. Is they holdo n until the 80's they might A) get a harder sound, like alot of 70's bands tried but never really managed to hold on to or B) experiment with syntheziers etc. This is most likely I think, especially if they become more and more prog rock in the 70's.
Evil_evol said:
Personally, I think it was an ASB that resulted in them breaking up to begin with.
I think that even if they didn't break up when/why they did, they probably still would all be doing solo projects that would take time away from working on Beatles stuff. You'd probably still have Wings, for instance. Most likely, they'd probably end up like the Eagles: taking a fourteen-year vacation, then getting back together to make billions on reunion tours. They'd release a few new songs every 5 years or so, but "The Beatles" would stagnate as a group.
One thing that you'll have to decide is whether or not John still gets killed. That would (obviously) influence what happens if they make it through the 70's still together.
(An interesting timeline of the breakup is here: http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbeatlesbreakup.html.)
chrispi said:What would the music world look like if the Beatles remained together to this day?
I would wager that their '80s music would sound remarkably like Duran Duran
Warning: Beatlemaniac here.
If you want to see what the Fab Four would look like had they stayed together until now, just take a peek at the Rolling Stones. If you can stand it, that is. The words "Spinal Tap" do come to mind. Part of the reason that the Beatles are so highly regarded by so many is that they were fortunate enough - despite themselves - to go out while still on top. Had they tried to hold on to past glories all through the glam/disco/punk/new wave/grunge/rap eras. . .ew. Just, eww.
Weapon M said:
"YO I'M MC LENNON AN' I'M-A BREAKIN' IT DOWN! CHECK OUT MA S#!T AS I RAWK DIS TOWN!"
No. Dear God, no.
Still and all, the Beastie Boys have been going on what - 18 years now? - and they've shown no signs of decay just yet. Their latest one, To The 5 Boroughs, while no Paul's Boutique (let alone Hello Nasty) is still up to their usual standards of excellence. So. . .it is possible. At least for the first twenty years. And I'm certain-sure that six year layoff between Nasty and Boroughs didn't hurt none. Sometimes you just have to take some time away and go refill the creative juices. But the B-boys may be the exception - even the mighty Public Enemy fell off after Apocalypse 91. On the other hand individual artists such as Neil Young, David Bowie and Madonna seem to have had more success holding on to their respective muses and/or reinventing themselves.
Well, let's see, you have the Rolling Stones and Aerosmith still keeping it together. Whether you like their current stuff or not, they are still big sellers.
But, and this is one of my personal things, I have to give credit to Rush. They don't seem as....I don't know, decayed??? as The Stones and Aerosmith. To me, they come across sharper and more polished than ever, as opposed to just hanging on or hanging in.
Maybe The Beatles would be kind of like that, not all techno and stuff, but sort of like the old stuff, but crisper, more modern, but still recognizable as Beatles...maybe stuff like Oasis or something....(not that I think Oasis is great), but that is the sort of thing that I think The Beatles might sound like now, that, or something like Grant Lee Buffalo, or Counting Crows....along those lines...
I think the Eagles comparison is probably dead on, too, though.
But, and this is one of my personal things, I have to give credit to Rush. They don't seem as....I don't know, decayed??? as The Stones and Aerosmith. To me, they come across sharper and more polished than ever, as opposed to just hanging on or hanging in.
Maybe The Beatles would be kind of like that, not all techno and stuff, but sort of like the old stuff, but crisper, more modern, but still recognizable as Beatles...maybe stuff like Oasis or something....(not that I think Oasis is great), but that is the sort of thing that I think The Beatles might sound like now, that, or something like Grant Lee Buffalo, or Counting Crows....along those lines...
I think the Eagles comparison is probably dead on, too, though.
Xen
Banned
Gwendolyn Ingolfsson said:Warning: Beatlemaniac here.
If you want to see what the Fab Four would look like had they stayed together until now, just take a peek at the Rolling Stones. If you can stand it, that is. The words "Spinal Tap" do come to mind. Part of the reason that the Beatles are so highly regarded by so many is that they were fortunate enough - despite themselves - to go out while still on top. Had they tried to hold on to past glories all through the glam/disco/punk/new wave/grunge/rap eras. . .ew. Just, eww.
I agree, Im a Beatle nut too, I even get the Beatle Fest magazine every year. I love the group, however the reason they are considered the greatest is the fact of the timing for everything. Their timing on coming to America was perfect, Rock N Roll was going down hill, their Sergeant Pepper Album was released at the perfect time, their experiment with music led a whole new genre of rock. Even the timing of their break up, and the way they broke up was almost perfect to secure their legendary status. Although in truth they could have hung on at the top for a few more years.
In one timeline I did sometime back I had John marry Astrid Kirchner in 1968 (he never met Yoko and Cynthia had been killed in a car accident in 1966). Astrid released a whole new side of John much the same way Yoko did, only a different type. John continued to be the leader of the group instead of going of screwing Yoko some where. The group continues to release hits and top the album charts until its break up in 1976. The group dissolved peacefully, each pursuing their own career. Ringo's music career flops but he finds an acting career for low budget films. George and Eric Clapton begin a super group that dominates the late 1970s and 1980s. Paul does something remarkably simliiar to Wings and is still on top of the game. John moves to Hollywood and becomes the most successful of the ex Beatles, touring simply as Lennon.
By the mid 1980s all the ex Beatles start experiencing a decline in interest from the fans. John and Paul unite for a World Tour in 1989, selling out stadiums across the world. Their Album released in 1990 with all new tracks and remakes from their Beatle years is the best selling album of the year. The fab four re-unite in 1993 after seeing the success Lennon and McCartney had. They tour the world and release a brand new album, both being extremely successful and the last word from the Beatles. George begins to become ill in the late 1990s and dies in 2002. John, Paul and Ringo do a farewell concert in his honor.
Weapon M said:
Haven't heard too much Rush so I can't say.
Weapon M said:
Oasis is one of the best Beatle imitation bands I've ever heard.
Now a good version of the Eagles scenario would be where after the acrimonious Let It Be the band decides to go on hiatus. They don't say they're breaking up or anything, just announce that for the next couple of years they're going to do solo projects/raise their families/hang out and stuff. Fifteen, 20 years pass and they reunite at Live Aid or whatever for a new album/concert tour. The disk kicks ass, the tour sells out and they're back on top again. They tour with Pearl Jam or Nirvana (Oh hell yes), getting some of that good creative mojo from the new jacks. Every few years a new album - quality over quantity, lads. Eventually they call it quits for good - probably with George's illness/death from cancer (unless it's butterflied away) - but their rep is as sound as in OTL. Hey, I think I like this idea!
Here's my take:
70s-The Fab 4 go on solo projects, but remain Beatles, whose albums could be considered prog-rock
80s-The Breakup. John, unsatisfied with the banality of prog-rock and entranced with Kraftwerk, moves the Beatles into the New Wave (think fellow Scousers the Lightning Seeds or Echo and the Bunnymen,) to the others' protest.
late 90s-The inevitable Reunion, followed by George's death.
70s-The Fab 4 go on solo projects, but remain Beatles, whose albums could be considered prog-rock
80s-The Breakup. John, unsatisfied with the banality of prog-rock and entranced with Kraftwerk, moves the Beatles into the New Wave (think fellow Scousers the Lightning Seeds or Echo and the Bunnymen,) to the others' protest.
late 90s-The inevitable Reunion, followed by George's death.
I think that if the Beatles abandon prog-rock and surf the New Wave (as I'm sure John would be wont to do) that their legend would only grow, like David Bowie's. But if they just remix and rehash "She Loves You" instead of creating the next "Tomorrow Never Knows" they'll be discarded as has-beens.Gwendolyn Ingolfsson said:Haven't heard too much Rush so I can't say.
Oasis is one of the best Beatle imitation bands I've ever heard.
Now a good version of the Eagles scenario would be where after the acrimonious Let It Be the band decides to go on hiatus. They don't say they're breaking up or anything, just announce that for the next couple of years they're going to do solo projects/raise their families/hang out and stuff. Fifteen, 20 years pass and they reunite at Live Aid or whatever for a new album/concert tour. The disk kicks ass, the tour sells out and they're back on top again. They tour with Pearl Jam or Nirvana (Oh hell yes), getting some of that good creative mojo from the new jacks. Every few years a new album - quality over quantity, lads. Eventually they call it quits for good - probably with George's illness/death from cancer (unless it's butterflied away) - but their rep is as sound as in OTL. Hey, I think I like this idea!