Heavy
Banned
I imagine Monterey and the formative Isle Of Wight festivals could still take place. That being said, the defining pop-culture event of the late 1960s would probably end up being Altamont.
WI: 1966, Bob Dylan is Dead and the Beatles Break Up
- Thread starter Emperor Norton I
- Start date
I imagine Monterey and the formative Isle Of Wight festivals could still take place. That being said, the defining pop-culture event of the late 1960s would probably end up being Altamont.
Monterey actually provides great opportunity for "What ifs".
There are bands that pulled out (for instance The Beach Boys & Captain Beefheart and his Magic Band) or ones that just weren't invited (The Doors, Velvet Underground) which could've changed the tone of the first big festival.
Also, getting back to the premise of this thread - if The Beatles had broken up in 1966 there's nothing stopping one or more ex-Beatle playing at Monterey with whoever they choose.
Perhaps Lennon would form a super group like The Dirty Macs. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vVJYnG8cBw
If The Beatles break up in '66 and Sgt. Pepper is never made, I can tell you this, and this will make a HUGE difference for The Stones moving forward: The Stones wouldn't follow Between The Buttons with that pile of garbage known as Their Satanic Majesty's Request.
This is a big deal because, without feeling like they've got to 'Follow The Beatles', they probably move into what I like to call their 'Golden Age', only they do so in mid to late '67, rather than winter/spring '68.
TSMR, with the exception of 2 songs (She's a Rainbow and 2000 Light Years from Home) is just plain terrible.
No Sgt. Pepper, The Stones move on to some of their finest work: Beggar's Banquet.
I tend to like the idea of Beggar's Banquet opening with Jumping Jack Flash and ending with Sympathy For The Devil, with all the good stuff from Beggar's in-between. (Especially the terribly under-rated deep cut Jigsaw Puzzle...love that song.)
Only thing is, if The Stones DON'T go through the learning experience of TSMR...do they ever evolve into the band that made Beggar's Banquet?
I like to think they do, I'm almost sure they would, but TSMR was one of those lessons of "Hey! You can't just put any shit you write on an album and expect it to sell just because 'You're The Stones'!".
Perhaps they come to their Beggar's/Let it Bleed/Sticky Fingers/Exile on Main Street period just out of wondering 'What now?' when The Beatles break up. The talent's still there. The chemistry's still there. It just needs the proper spark to set it off.
They'll still release Between The Buttons in spring of '67, as that was the follow up to Aftermath and their answer to Revolver, but I don't know if The Stones in summer/fall '67 can make Beggar's Banquet yet.
Any possible POD's that could accelerate The Stones evolution to the point where they can transition straight from Between The Buttons to Beggar's Banquet?
The Stones sound like a totally different band on Beggar's than they were a year earlier on BTB.
_________________________
Now, as to The Beach Boys, also mentioned in this thread, I think without the pressure to match/surpass The Beatles, Brian Wilson doesn't lose it altogether and fry himself while working on Smile!.
In fact, with the pressure to match/surpass The Beatles gone, I think Brian Wilson doesn't push himself so hard during the creative and production process of Smile!, and takes a more relaxed approach to crafting the album, and with far less personal anxiety, thus, he actually ends up making the album he wanted to make, rather than the confused, rambling, 'Where the HELL is this thing going?!' mess that Smile! ended up being IOTL.
Just my two cents.
I'm one of those who actually likes 'Their Satanic Majesties Request' - just because it's chaotic & awkward - it's a great example of a band trying something that's not really their strength and being somewhat uncomfortable doing it.
Still, I'm a sucker for albums where a band's in transition & trying things that don't quite fit. (See also: Status Quo's "Ma Kelly's Greasy Spoon" or Pink Floyd "Saucerful of Secrets" & film soundtrack albums - they have their moments too)
As for the Rolling Stones refining their rock without going psychedelic - there ARE some outtakes around this period that are more straightforward rock.
For instance, this one from the 'Between the Buttons' sessions in late 1966: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XoquY7jLe8
It could be held-over for a release on a 1967 album with some of the more straightforward rock tracks from Satanic Majesties, and any single tracks that fit a less psychedelic brief.. maybe without the Beatles they get inspired by the first Grateful Dead album (released March 1967) and think that their solid take on R'n'B is the way to go.. or the less-arty stuff on The Velvet Underground & Nico.
The 'production race' with the Beatles wasn't the only pressure on Brian - squabbles with Capitol Records, lack of support from some of his own band (ok, Mike Love basically), and the difficulty of assembling together an entire album from small sections in the days before digital editing all played their part.
Factor in the drug consumption too, and Smile was almost set-up to fail.
There was really only one other person working in a similar way in the pop world (putting together massive edits & intricate arrangements), and that's Frank Zappa - but he was only fueled on coffee & cigarettes.
Get Brian Wilson off drugs early, and make him strong-willed like Zappa then you have a completed Smile. In OTL his willingness to please other people also lead to his downfall.
You THEN also have a different Smile that might be a little less whimsical.
Hmm.. with a Beatles break-up in late 1966 (lets say just after the Candlestick Park concert 29 August 1966) it's too late to bring Clapton into Lennon's post-Beatles band - he's already joined Cream.
But there is another top gunslinger that could make for an interesting supergroup.
I think Jeff Beck leaves the Yardbirds around October 1966 - how about a group based around Lennon's songwriting & vocals and Beck's guitar skills?
For Jeff Beck there's a lot to gain from this partnership - the Jeff Beck Group in our timeline suffered from weak songwriting - having to resort to covers to pad out their albums.
For John Lennon it means a top notch guitarist that can deliver both virtuosity and a mass of sound for hard rock performances.
Add in the bass player & drummer of your choice and you have a hell of a lot of potential.
Oh yeah.. and as for a name.. The Jeff Beck Group or the Plastic Ono Band won't do.. in this timeline John doesn't meet Yoko, and a band named after Jeff wouldn't fly with Lennon.
I'd suggest a variation of a name the Beatles used to have - Moondogs. (From "Johnny & the Moondogs")
Last edited:
I said like the Dirty Macs and your idea fits in nicely with mine. As for a bass player maybe Beck could suggest John Paul Jones?
Now we just need a drummer.
Oh hell yeah! I forgot about Klaus.
Here's a crazy idea for drums Pete Best! well maybe not.
Pete Best and the other Beatles would not be on good terms. Best resented the Beatles for what they did for a number of years, he was mad at them for what they did for a number of years, his life was hell and he had to work through shit-kicker jobs to make ends meet and that falling from on high thing and almost making it and being stunted and thrown back really devastates a person and makes them very angry, resentful and depressed. And he was depressed for a long time, and he was suicidal and I think he attempted it. He's gotten over it as the years went by, but it still lingers with him. And the members of the Beatles, in 50-odd years and in 40 or so years since they broke up never once have attempted to reach out to Pete Best, and he hasn't had any contact with them since 1962 or whenever it was they broke up, and he only saw them in the 60s after that because they and a band he was playing in at the time were at the same gig, and when they came off stage, his band was going on or vice versa, and they passed each other. So that's not gonna happen.
You could possibly have Jimmie Nicol if you really wanted to push it for past Beatles alumni coming on. Nicol was the drummer who filled in for Ringo on tour that year when Ringo was really sick. When it looked like Ringo was quitting, I think it was during the White Album sessions, Paul mentioned bringing in Jimmie Nicol to replace Ringo. Being in the Beatles and then leaving really fucked up Nicol apparently as well, and he left music in 1967 and doesn't talk about his time in the Beatles and he has, from reports, become a recluse who lives in a small apartment and no longer talks to anyone, even his son (who became a sound engineer). It has to be something of being at the top of the world with fame, fortune, attention and absolutely everything, and then being kicked out and forced to be a normal human being again. That must really mess up people.
Anyway, Jimmie Nicol would be free if any of the ex-Beatles actually wanted to pursue getting him. However, his emotional state and reaction to life in the OTL may note just how things may go in this ATL scenario, with Nicol becoming like every other celebrity who burned out and collapsed under pressure of fame, and I could see him also becoming that sort of celebrity who just becomes a jerk in his fame. Being a jerk would be against the Beatles, since say what you like (and they have said it about themselves), they were actually still nice guys and average guys through it all. Nicol would, if he became a jerk celebrity, be the black sheep and the one guy who stood out and who they couldn't get for the Behind the Music retrospective interview. That may not be fair to Jimmie Nicol, and he may not have become a jerk, but I really don't know because of how little there is on him you can easily find out, and all I'm going off of are the way he reacted to life and the time he was quoted as saying he was better than Ringo (saying something to the effect of "Ringo's alright, but *insert whatever it was*").
Last edited:
Yeah I knew all that, it was just a lame joke.
You ever read "paperback Writer"? There's a joke about Pete Best & Jimmy Nichol writing a book together called " The Beatles told us to beat it.
Well at least it's better than the one I made.
Two Bob Dylan related name drops:
Phil Ochs
Donovan
Any opinions on how they react to the void left by Dylan? They were the two figures most the contemporary of Dylan, at least from what I can think of at the moment, so they are perhaps the best people to make up for the loss.
Phil Ochs
Donovan
Any opinions on how they react to the void left by Dylan? They were the two figures most the contemporary of Dylan, at least from what I can think of at the moment, so they are perhaps the best people to make up for the loss.
amphibulous
Banned
Neither of them had Dylan's versatility, ability to innovate and to change with the times. You'd do better looking to Lou Reed or Neil Young or Van Morrison - people were/are Dylan's reasonable equals in talent.
Ochs is interesting.. IF he can step back a little from the politics - as Dylan did in OTL, it would go a long way towards preserving his sanity - he certainly had some songwriting chops.
He was kind-of out on his own when he made some odd career moves (eg going 1950s rock'n'roll, recording in Africa) but timing is everything in the entertainment business - Paul Simon did quite well when he recorded in Africa a decade later.
As for Donovan, his mid-60s hits had some top session men playing on them - including Jimmy Page & John Paul Jones. What if in this timeline he decides to take some of those session-men out on tour with him?
If Donovan's band are successful as a live act, that could stop Page joining the Yardbirds & eventually forming Led Zeppelin.
I don't know if I said this yet or not but one of the interesting prospects here is the Beatles being more like other bands in their activities. The Beatles are a bit unique in that they were one unit, all the members remained on board and no new members were added, they were together their whole run and then split up never to reform again. Other bands were and are very much different: they lose and gain members all the time, sometimes so much that at a certain point, no one from the original band is left, and they're constantly breaking up and reforming and reforming with different members, reforming for a limited time tour and all that. The Beatles never ever did that, and is frankly one of the things that entices me about them. They are like a golden and simple standard.
This scenario offers the prospect of them doing that stuff. They could reform at any point for any number of years to be together, or could just reform for a limited time tour. They could add members during that second run. They could do it just John and Paul with new people to replace George and/or Ringo. They could add a new member of multiple new members. Hell, you could end up with a Beatles that eventually has none of the original members in it because people kept cycling through. Imagine something like when Chicago's frontman died and was replaced with Peter Cetera, and Chicago went from a jazz rock group to that adult contemporary 80s soft music they became known for (and which was responsible for their return), and imagine something like that happening with the Beatles. I'm not saying that would happen, but with the infinite possibilities of the universe and making it so the Beatles are like other bands were in their break up/make up, lose, gain and change dynamics, you open up the prospect of moving along genres and drastically changing genres.
I now launch you to make any potential "WI The Beatles went Metal" and "WI The Beatles went Adult Contemporary" threads you may make.
I do blieve Ochs tried to become more mainstream in the OTL, but it didn't take off.
As to anything specific besides taht, I have absolutely positively no clue nor ability to submit an opinion because I don't know enough.
This scenario offers the prospect of them doing that stuff. They could reform at any point for any number of years to be together, or could just reform for a limited time tour. They could add members during that second run. They could do it just John and Paul with new people to replace George and/or Ringo. They could add a new member of multiple new members. Hell, you could end up with a Beatles that eventually has none of the original members in it because people kept cycling through. Imagine something like when Chicago's frontman died and was replaced with Peter Cetera, and Chicago went from a jazz rock group to that adult contemporary 80s soft music they became known for (and which was responsible for their return), and imagine something like that happening with the Beatles. I'm not saying that would happen, but with the infinite possibilities of the universe and making it so the Beatles are like other bands were in their break up/make up, lose, gain and change dynamics, you open up the prospect of moving along genres and drastically changing genres.
I now launch you to make any potential "WI The Beatles went Metal" and "WI The Beatles went Adult Contemporary" threads you may make.
I do blieve Ochs tried to become more mainstream in the OTL, but it didn't take off.
As to anything specific besides taht, I have absolutely positively no clue nor ability to submit an opinion because I don't know enough.
Heavy
Banned
I'm not sure if that's a good example. Peter Cetera had always been a member of Chicago, as their bass guitarist and one of the three co-lead vocalists alongside Terry Kath and Robert Lamm. In fact, Cetera sang lead vocals on perhaps the most famous song of the "Kath era" Chicago, "25 Or 6 To 4".
Applied to this scenario, I suppose a comparable example would be the Beatles continuing up to the point where Lennon is shot, at which point McCartney would become the band's definite leader an sole lead vocalist.
Alright, perhaps not a perfect example but you do get the point. That's one of the possibilities for bands: there's the ship of Theseus principle to bands which the Beatles were one of the few never to go through, and that's an area which fascinates me as a possibility for the Beatles, and fascinates me because you could very well do it and make the Beatles like most other bands in a way the Beatles absolutely never were. Part of that principle, though not directly part of it, is a band completely going to a different genre and becoming a new entity as a result compared to what it originally was (even if the membership is the same, or mostly the same).
If Paul became leader, it would be much more of a situation like when Cetera became leader, you are correct, but I don't believe it would have been like it was with Cetera where the band completely did a 180 and went from 70s Jazz Rock Chicago to 80s Adult contemporary soft Chicago. McCartney's material in the 80s was still very true to McCartney as he had been, albeit properly modern pop rock for the 1980s. McCartney could have taken the Beatles in a slightly different direction by becoming sole and undisputed group leader in that era, but that direction would have been McCartney and hence would still be what it always was, just more leaning towards him. Chicago was vastly different and a big change, and other groups have undergone a similar total change. The Beatles themselves did change during their time, but it was a gradual and natural evolution rather than "we got a new front man" or "the records aren't selling anymore, and we've tried this for a few years after no one cared. We need to totally change".
Two comments I'd like to add.
Firstly, if the Beatles broke up in 1966 it would feed into things being said by the more prickish critics of the era. There was a group out there that was saying the reason the Beatles had stopped touring in 1966 and why you didn't see an album come out in months (in 1966, the period between Revolver and Sgt. Pepper's without a record was unheard of) was not because they were rethinking priorities and were working on something that would become "Sgt. Pepper's" (which they didn't know about) but because they were burned out and (among the more prickish critics) washed up and they were about to break up. That was blown apart by the release of Sgt. Pepper's, but in this timeline they will indeed have broken up. They won't be washed up or burned out, because there's no way they won't continue to do projects in a solo career and those solo careers will blow apart claims that they didn't have any talent left or were old hat, but the break up itself will feed the prickish critics a bit.
Secondly, and I tend not to do this, but I'm going to do the scenario cheat for my own scenario. And I'm going to do so because, since this thread was made, it made me think of possibly using this scenario. Taking off on the idea of John Lennon going off to hangout with Andy Warhol, I do wonder if with that same scenario, what if Stu Sutcliffe had not died in 1962 and instead had lived. Sutcliffe as an element in there would help immerse Lennon into that artistic, offbeat 1960s scene world of Andy Warhol and the like and it would help place Lennon there.
Firstly, if the Beatles broke up in 1966 it would feed into things being said by the more prickish critics of the era. There was a group out there that was saying the reason the Beatles had stopped touring in 1966 and why you didn't see an album come out in months (in 1966, the period between Revolver and Sgt. Pepper's without a record was unheard of) was not because they were rethinking priorities and were working on something that would become "Sgt. Pepper's" (which they didn't know about) but because they were burned out and (among the more prickish critics) washed up and they were about to break up. That was blown apart by the release of Sgt. Pepper's, but in this timeline they will indeed have broken up. They won't be washed up or burned out, because there's no way they won't continue to do projects in a solo career and those solo careers will blow apart claims that they didn't have any talent left or were old hat, but the break up itself will feed the prickish critics a bit.
Secondly, and I tend not to do this, but I'm going to do the scenario cheat for my own scenario. And I'm going to do so because, since this thread was made, it made me think of possibly using this scenario. Taking off on the idea of John Lennon going off to hangout with Andy Warhol, I do wonder if with that same scenario, what if Stu Sutcliffe had not died in 1962 and instead had lived. Sutcliffe as an element in there would help immerse Lennon into that artistic, offbeat 1960s scene world of Andy Warhol and the like and it would help place Lennon there.
One wonders what Capitol's reaction will be to the break up. It's 1966, and the Beatles have split up. Revolver has been released, but there's nothing forthcoming for 1967 and there won't be. You'll get solo content from Paul McCartney and John Lennon and George Harrison and Ringo Starr if they sign up with Capitol (the Beatles contract with Capitol expired June 3, 1966 and was resigned -with differences- on January 26, 1967 in the OTL), or potentially if they remold themselves into different groups, but the Beatles name is still huge and Capitol has just lost that name.
For one thing, logistically I think Capitol would scramble to make sure that the ex-Beatles remain with the label in whatever solo career or post-Beatles groups they may have. I don't see a reason for the ex-Beatles not to sign up with Capitol in 1967 like they did in the OTL as the Beatles, and I suspect they'll make the same contract requests, one of which is disallowing Capitol from "butchering" their album content like they did with the Beatles content for American versions of the albums (an OTL stipulation which is why from Pepper's onwards, there was no more "butchering"). The only way I think any of the ex-Beatles would not sign is if one or more of them took a break for a while, or if they joined other groups or created new groups and found themselves on a different label due to the new people they're associated with.
For a second thing, I'd expect Capitol to try to cash in on and make the most of the break up with the Beatles album content. I expect them to push Revolver hard in the wake of the break up, promoting the last Beatles album. I'd also expect them overall to blitz the market with promotion for Beatles albums and singles in the wake of the break up since sales will spike and capitalizing on that and promoting Beatles material heavily will make it spike further. I'd also expect at least one or two repackaged Beatles release containing already released materials. In the age of the CD where the Beatles finally go purity of the album canon, people forget how Capitol repackaged Beatles material all the time. And I'm not speaking about the butchered albums or the albums made up of leftovers that they removed from other albums and cobbled together to make new ones. I'm speaking of already released material you could buy on American releases previously, repackaged in new form. Such was the case with "Rock 'n' Roll Music" and "Love Songs" and so on. I'd expect to see a few of those happen to cash in.
I'm not sure if there were any by this point, but if Capitol has any material left over which they removed from Beatles American albums before or singles that they didn't issue in America and any unreleased, unheard content on the whole, I'd expect them to cobble that together into an album or release a few singles if there's not enough unreleased material for that. I know "Yesterday and Today" was that sort of album where all the butchered out materials were cobbled together like a Frankenstein, but I think that album may have been where they put everything which they had removed from American album pressings and were hence unreleased at that time. Someone else would have to figure out if there was any unreleased songs left in 1966 at the time of this alternate break up, since I honestly don't know.
For one thing, logistically I think Capitol would scramble to make sure that the ex-Beatles remain with the label in whatever solo career or post-Beatles groups they may have. I don't see a reason for the ex-Beatles not to sign up with Capitol in 1967 like they did in the OTL as the Beatles, and I suspect they'll make the same contract requests, one of which is disallowing Capitol from "butchering" their album content like they did with the Beatles content for American versions of the albums (an OTL stipulation which is why from Pepper's onwards, there was no more "butchering"). The only way I think any of the ex-Beatles would not sign is if one or more of them took a break for a while, or if they joined other groups or created new groups and found themselves on a different label due to the new people they're associated with.
For a second thing, I'd expect Capitol to try to cash in on and make the most of the break up with the Beatles album content. I expect them to push Revolver hard in the wake of the break up, promoting the last Beatles album. I'd also expect them overall to blitz the market with promotion for Beatles albums and singles in the wake of the break up since sales will spike and capitalizing on that and promoting Beatles material heavily will make it spike further. I'd also expect at least one or two repackaged Beatles release containing already released materials. In the age of the CD where the Beatles finally go purity of the album canon, people forget how Capitol repackaged Beatles material all the time. And I'm not speaking about the butchered albums or the albums made up of leftovers that they removed from other albums and cobbled together to make new ones. I'm speaking of already released material you could buy on American releases previously, repackaged in new form. Such was the case with "Rock 'n' Roll Music" and "Love Songs" and so on. I'd expect to see a few of those happen to cash in.
I'm not sure if there were any by this point, but if Capitol has any material left over which they removed from Beatles American albums before or singles that they didn't issue in America and any unreleased, unheard content on the whole, I'd expect them to cobble that together into an album or release a few singles if there's not enough unreleased material for that. I know "Yesterday and Today" was that sort of album where all the butchered out materials were cobbled together like a Frankenstein, but I think that album may have been where they put everything which they had removed from American album pressings and were hence unreleased at that time. Someone else would have to figure out if there was any unreleased songs left in 1966 at the time of this alternate break up, since I honestly don't know.