Exactly what I was thinking. Also, would it be crazy to right an old wrong and bring in Pete Best on drums? or is that just silly?
WI: 1966, Bob Dylan is Dead and the Beatles Break Up
- Thread starter Emperor Norton I
- Start date
Exactly what I was thinking. Also, would it be crazy to right an old wrong and bring in Pete Best on drums? or is that just silly?
Let me explain further as a means to bump shamelessly.
In 1962 Pete Best was let go. None of the Beatles had any contact whatsoever with Pete Best thereafter. As Pete Best says himself, once they made it big, if they didn't want to talk to you their people made sure you didn't get to talk to them. The only contact post-1962 Pete Best had was when he was in a new band and his band and the Beatles were on the same bill and his band and the Beatles passed each other going on and off stage. That's it. And Pete Best felt horrifically betrayed and let down by being kicked out and the Beatles major success and inescapability, which left him in a depression for years and, though he's long since learned to live and let live, still lingers and hurts him. So the Beatles don't want to associate with Best and may be a bit embarrassed perhaps and Best feels betrayed and depressed over the whole thing, so I can't see any rekindling (at least not in that period; as older men in the 80s or onward, perhaps).
The more likely situation would be Ringo being the drummer, at least for whatever faction of the post-Beatles could get him as their dedicated drummer. That only counts for groups, really, since groups need dedicated members. Solo careers, it'd be session people or whoever could be brought in per recording/album. It's important to note that the Beatles after their OTL break up still collaborated, with Ringo recording drums on Lennon songs and George Harrison recording guitar on Lennon songs and Harrison writing material for Ringo and that sort of thing.
Last edited:
The Pete Best situation certainly was a heartbreaker. It's also a shame that he never really managed to break out as a drummer in his own right with bands other than the Beatles. Would have been nice to see him achieve some success with other chart topping bands through the 1960's and beyond.
I think the death of Dylan would have a bigger cultural impact than a premature Beatles breakup anyway. No basement tapes, no John Wesley Harding so just with those two collections missing you're robbing Hendrix, the Manfreds and many more of some of their greatest hits.
I think the death of Dylan would have a bigger cultural impact than a premature Beatles breakup anyway. No basement tapes, no John Wesley Harding so just with those two collections missing you're robbing Hendrix, the Manfreds and many more of some of their greatest hits.
Pete Best's biggest problem post-Beatles, at least in my opinion, was he stuck to 50s rock and standards and there is only so much room for that, and that room shrinks more and more as the 60s go on. I think that was why he didn't do more than mediocre success. He still does that today, though we've gotten to the point given the element of "classic" that naturally sets in with all things that that is ok. I also dare say Pete could have done better had he taken a non-shy role. In the All-Stars(/Pete Best Combo) he became the leader of the group de jure, but all he did was play the drums. He never sang or wrote anything. The singing was done by another member, and the writing was done by the other members.
Something has struck me:
In the post-Beatles breakup, the former members of the Beatles could continue to write songs they give away to other artists, whether because they wrote them for other people in mind or they wrote them but didn't like them for themselves or they just couldn't fit them into an album on on a single. Also, the former Beatles, should they not be in a band or take on a solo career (whether for a long period or shot period), could make their living writing and composing music for other musicians.
If you're interested in the songs the Beatles handed off to other musicians, look here.
http://www.beatlesagain.com/breflib/gaveaway.html
http://musicouch.com/genres/rock/the-22-songs-the-beatles-gave-away/
I also had the thought that if the Beatles broke up, in the narrative of history it could fit well. Though the Beatles would have individual careers, it opens up the door for the Rolling Stones (who will keep going) to get more prominence. The Stones sound and behavior is far less one of peace and love compared to the Beatles, and has a harder edge, and that could fit well with the progressing 60s which are turning from "peace and love" to "any means necessary" and are getting harsher and harder.
In the post-Beatles breakup, the former members of the Beatles could continue to write songs they give away to other artists, whether because they wrote them for other people in mind or they wrote them but didn't like them for themselves or they just couldn't fit them into an album on on a single. Also, the former Beatles, should they not be in a band or take on a solo career (whether for a long period or shot period), could make their living writing and composing music for other musicians.
If you're interested in the songs the Beatles handed off to other musicians, look here.
http://www.beatlesagain.com/breflib/gaveaway.html
http://musicouch.com/genres/rock/the-22-songs-the-beatles-gave-away/
I also had the thought that if the Beatles broke up, in the narrative of history it could fit well. Though the Beatles would have individual careers, it opens up the door for the Rolling Stones (who will keep going) to get more prominence. The Stones sound and behavior is far less one of peace and love compared to the Beatles, and has a harder edge, and that could fit well with the progressing 60s which are turning from "peace and love" to "any means necessary" and are getting harsher and harder.
Last edited:
Is anyone knowledgeable enough to know the legal issues and ramifications related to a Beatles break up?
I am woefully ignorant here. I do know that the actual Beatles break up took suing (I think it was McCartney who sued) to get the Beatles officially dissolved as an organization, and I have heard that the reasons the Rolling Stones won't break up at this point is that they are such a complex legal and business empire that it would be a total pain in the ass so they just tour every now and then instead. I would otherwise assume the Beatles could just say they didn't want to be Beatles anymore and that'd be the end of it, but it looks like that's a childishly ignorant way of looking at it and that there would be legal issues that would need to be ironed out.
So if anyone knows anything, I beg you to chime in here.
I do know that the Beatles contract with Capitol was up in 1966, so that should be a non-issue. I don't know about their contract to EMI/Parlophone. Epstein is dead in 1966, so they no longer have a manager, so that should also be a non-issue unless they were still tied to his estate or business holdings.
I am woefully ignorant here. I do know that the actual Beatles break up took suing (I think it was McCartney who sued) to get the Beatles officially dissolved as an organization, and I have heard that the reasons the Rolling Stones won't break up at this point is that they are such a complex legal and business empire that it would be a total pain in the ass so they just tour every now and then instead. I would otherwise assume the Beatles could just say they didn't want to be Beatles anymore and that'd be the end of it, but it looks like that's a childishly ignorant way of looking at it and that there would be legal issues that would need to be ironed out.
So if anyone knows anything, I beg you to chime in here.
I do know that the Beatles contract with Capitol was up in 1966, so that should be a non-issue. I don't know about their contract to EMI/Parlophone. Epstein is dead in 1966, so they no longer have a manager, so that should also be a non-issue unless they were still tied to his estate or business holdings.
I heard a version of "the End" that he drummed over. He didn't play it better, nor as good as Ringo. Glad he got rich in 1995 but he wasn't the drummer Ringo was.
Those are for a different thread. You can make the case for 2 and 3 in this universe, though. Deaths are random and the Beach Boys didn't complete 'Smile' due to Brian Wilson's mental instability and his emotional collapse in reaction to 'Sgt. Pepper's'.
Was it this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbiDBKvh2S0
Because that's not real. It's only a parody.
I can see a couple of ways it might work.Emperor Norton I said:
One, bands that had real trouble competing against the powerhouse Beatles get a boost by the vacuum. Cream? The Kinks? IDK.
The other side of that is bands that were a product of Beatlemania, like The Monkees. I've a hunch they'd never happen....
So it's conceivable to get *The Beatles featuring (pulling names out of the air) Eric Clapton, John Fogerty, Burton Cummings, & Linda Ronstadt?
p)And talking of solo careers: does this mean McCartney creates *Wings in '67 or '68? Or does he just take over *The (new) Beatles?
Something else to consider: who owns the rights to The Beatles name? (And thus keep McCartney from using it...?)
I don't think you've killed off the Mamas & Papas, the Kingsmen, or Seger, but you've effectively killed folk rock. For some reason, I think you've also killed off Buffalo Springfield, Linda Ronstadt, & Poco. (Don't ask why; subconscious at work...bobinleipsic said:
)If Baez is smaller, does that mean "Woodstock" doesn't get written or recorded?
(The Matthews Southern Comfort version is one of the lovliest melodies I've ever heard...)I don't know how to start a new thread. This whole site is very confusing to use.
The Bob Dylan portion of this topic is under discussed, so I will add to it. If Bob Dylan dies in 1966, that will affect The Band. (Not a band; the band named "The Band"). If the Band is affected, that will have a larger impact on music since they weren't exactly minor. It would also affect the Byrds, among others. There was a wealth of material Dylan wrote after going into seclusion after his accident, and this material was covered by other artists, and certainly his material after 1966 had a major impact on music. Every song that is not covered because it does not exist has a big change on the music scene. And in this scenario, there is no "All Along the Watchtower" for Hendrix. There is no "You Ain't Goin' Nowhere" for the Byrds. And there's certainly none of that from Bob Dylan.
Dylan also had an impact on the Beatles, in that (ignoring his other influences on them all) he had an influence on George Harrison. In the later 60s and around the time of the Beatles breakup, Harrison was influenced watching Dylan and the Band play together. I think that was during the Basement Tapes sessions if I'm not mistaken. That had an influence on the material on Harrison's solo album in 1970.
EDIT:
Dylan also had an impact on the Beatles, in that (ignoring his other influences on them all) he had an influence on George Harrison. In the later 60s and around the time of the Beatles breakup, Harrison was influenced watching Dylan and the Band play together. I think that was during the Basement Tapes sessions if I'm not mistaken. That had an influence on the material on Harrison's solo album in 1970.
EDIT:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Things_Must_Pass said:
On the Band's career.. well, without the Basement Tapes sessions, The Band may well just revert to R'n'B.. or be more solidly country (if they choose that route). The thing is, I'm not sure their style would be as much of a melting pot as OTL.
As for The Byrds, a lot depends on whether Gram Parsons joins. Roger McGuinn's original idea for their 1968 album was a loose concept double album charting the evolution of music from basic folk right through to electronic music. It was the pairing of Chris Hillman & Gram Parsons that encouraged him to drop that idea and record a country album.
If Gram doesn't join & they don't have Bob Dylan hinting at country rock on 'John Wesley Harding', The Byrds may release a genre-spanning double album in 1968, similar to what The Beatles did in our timeline - just with a more ordered track sequence.
I think George Harrison was hoping that the 'Let It Be' rehearsals and sessions would be like The Band/Bob Dylan in feel & sound - he'd just spent the end of 1968 in upstate New York too, so it would've left a huge impression. It was already starting to work it's way into his music in 1968 - Long, Long, Long has that homespun, fireside sort of feel to it.
But without the rustic influence of those guys George could be a completely different musician. Maybe he never becomes interested in playing slide guitar? That would hugely change his sound from 1969 onwards.
The Monkees could end up with a bigger boost and popularity in this timeline compared to the OTL, if only by an amount not to be overstated. A lot of the Monkees popularity in the OTL derived from the fact that the Beatles had not toured since the Candlestick Park concert in September 1966, and that they had not released an album after Revolver in August of 1966. So the Beatles were on vacation. It also derived from the fact that the Beatles were getting more mature and less straight forward (then modern) popular music. And it derived from the fact that people love a new sensation to go along with. So when the Monkees hit, it was like Beatlemania all over again. And it was further helped that when the Beatles returned in 1967, they were no longer the mop tops. So the Monkees hearkened back to that simpler Beatles incarnation. (Not to try to overstate: the Beatles did very much mature in the mop top era. It's just that the Beatles in 1967 had become quite different from the pre-1966 era. To paraphrase Bob Dylan, they no longer wanted to be cute).
So for those reasons, if the Beatles break up, it very probably (in my opinion) makes the Monkees even more popular because it turns all the reasons the Monkees got a boost in the OTL up to 11. And then of course the Monkees will mature more and want to branch out, and the cycle repeats. (Fitting this scenario, the Monkees themselves were only together for 5 years).
On another topic, I've thought recently that the idea of this thread could overlap with another thread, which is what if the Beatles had released an album in late 1966 or early 1967; that period being the lost album because the Beatles were on a release schedule of a single every 3 months and an album every 6 months. Penny Lane/Strawberry Fields Forever was released 6 months after Revolver, and Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band was released in summer of 1967. That was totally unprecedented and was a lifetime back then.
In a timeline where the Beatles are going to end, it may be conceivable that they'd end up releasing an album in late 1966 or early 1967, and then be done. And the reasons that lead to that album could be the same ones that lead to a breakup; not arriving upon the idea to take a vacation and quit touring, for example.
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=292117
EDIT:
On the topic of Bob Dylan, it could affect the Byrds in the form of the Byrds covering any Bob Dylan material after his death being seen as pilfering, and pilfering in bad taste. The Byrds got flack as it was in the OTL for going to that well more than once.
So for those reasons, if the Beatles break up, it very probably (in my opinion) makes the Monkees even more popular because it turns all the reasons the Monkees got a boost in the OTL up to 11. And then of course the Monkees will mature more and want to branch out, and the cycle repeats. (Fitting this scenario, the Monkees themselves were only together for 5 years).
On another topic, I've thought recently that the idea of this thread could overlap with another thread, which is what if the Beatles had released an album in late 1966 or early 1967; that period being the lost album because the Beatles were on a release schedule of a single every 3 months and an album every 6 months. Penny Lane/Strawberry Fields Forever was released 6 months after Revolver, and Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band was released in summer of 1967. That was totally unprecedented and was a lifetime back then.
In a timeline where the Beatles are going to end, it may be conceivable that they'd end up releasing an album in late 1966 or early 1967, and then be done. And the reasons that lead to that album could be the same ones that lead to a breakup; not arriving upon the idea to take a vacation and quit touring, for example.
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=292117
EDIT:
On the topic of Bob Dylan, it could affect the Byrds in the form of the Byrds covering any Bob Dylan material after his death being seen as pilfering, and pilfering in bad taste. The Byrds got flack as it was in the OTL for going to that well more than once.
I realize the timing is a bit fine, & it's perfectly likely the impulse to create a faux Beatles is strong, but I wonder if The Monkees happen at all. The show, maybe, but the "real Vulcan" aspect? IDK.
aspect? IDK.In a cultural context, I believe the narrative and perception would be that the Beatles reached as far as they could go as the entity known as "The Beatles" in terms of their development and evolution, with Revolver as the peak of a musical development that was reaching the speed of light. And that the way the (ex) Beatles were in 1967 could not have been what they could have been together. How could John Lennon have recorded "Strawberry Fields Forever" as a Beatle, after all? It was a very personal song and it's style was different from what the Beatles had done. (It's very much like when Ray Davies showed "Waterloo Sunset" to the other Kinks; he wasn't sure it was a Kinks song).
If you look at the way it was in the OTL, there is a distinction between what I'll shorthand as the Beatles "Red" era and the "Blue" era; that being 1962-1966 and 1966-1970 respectably. The Beatles were still the Beatles in the Blue era, but they also kinda weren't. That Red era is the Beatles at full operational strength as an entity and a single organism, and is defined by certain things (style both musically and fashionably, group dynamics, etc). You can shorthand it further as the Beatles as moptops and Beatlemania. Even as it evolved, it evolved in a certain way that feels like an entity. The Beatles in the Blue era are different, and there is an increased vibe of maturity, but the Beatles of the blue era feel more like 4 guys together rather than a group. So narratively, it does fit to have them breakup in 1966 because that's when they made a leap into something different anyway. That's the thesis as of this post, and may only be an opinion of the moment.
If you look at the way it was in the OTL, there is a distinction between what I'll shorthand as the Beatles "Red" era and the "Blue" era; that being 1962-1966 and 1966-1970 respectably. The Beatles were still the Beatles in the Blue era, but they also kinda weren't. That Red era is the Beatles at full operational strength as an entity and a single organism, and is defined by certain things (style both musically and fashionably, group dynamics, etc). You can shorthand it further as the Beatles as moptops and Beatlemania. Even as it evolved, it evolved in a certain way that feels like an entity. The Beatles in the Blue era are different, and there is an increased vibe of maturity, but the Beatles of the blue era feel more like 4 guys together rather than a group. So narratively, it does fit to have them breakup in 1966 because that's when they made a leap into something different anyway. That's the thesis as of this post, and may only be an opinion of the moment.
I realize the timing is a bit fine, & it's perfectly likely the impulse to create a faux Beatles is strong, but I wonder if The Monkees happen at all. The show, maybe, but the "real Vulcan"
Revolver was released in August of 1966, and the Candlestick Park concert was later that month. The Monkees show started in September of 1966, Last Train to Clarksville was released in August, and the first album was released in October. It was all in that late Summer/early Fall period that all these things happened, so it would have existed all the same.
I do think the Monkees would do as much as they did in actuality in trying to control their direction, and would have as much chance of failing or succeeding as in the OTL.