WI: 1966, Bob Dylan is Dead and the Beatles Break Up

[Emperor Norton I]

My ignorance is showing. Thx.

That being true, I'd agree, there's a decent chance they are bigger.

Here's the thing: the discovery that the Monkees didn't play their instruments and the fallout from it has a chance of being bigger too. It was probably the biggest scar on the Monkees, and one that was serious and did linger, even despite the fact that they wanted to play their own instruments but were forbade to for the first two (?) albums, and they played their own once they got creative control.

And there's the fact that once the Monkees were writing their own material, as time passed the hits were not coming anymore. That could be offset if they were bigger, since a hit song is often just one because people are exposed to it enough. Or it could be the case here.

And you do also have the fact that the Monkees were losing popularity as time went on, and could be classified as a fad.

 

[phx1138]

Here's the thing: the discovery that the Monkees didn't play their instruments and the fallout from it has a chance of being bigger too. It was probably the biggest scar on the Monkees, and one that was serious and did linger, even despite the fact that they wanted to play their own instruments but were forbade to for the first two (?) albums, and they played their own once they got creative control.

And there's the fact that once the Monkees were writing their own material, as time passed the hits were not coming anymore. That could be offset if they were bigger, since a hit song is often just one because people are exposed to it enough. Or it could be the case here.

And you do also have the fact that the Monkees were losing popularity as time went on, and could be classified as a fad.

Very possible. (As much as I dislike the Monkees, I'd be happy with that.)

OTOH, without The Beatles to compete with, & allowing they've survived past the "no instruments" shock, who's to say that doesn't encourage the producers (or the label) to let them have their shot at being a real band? In fact, if there are unattached musicians around, who says they might not just pick up one of them...?

Also (because I forgot to mention this before), can I put in a vote for success by The Hudson Brothers? They were a decent band, but got stuck into an awful morning kids' variety show. (I used to watch, & thought, even at about age 10, the music was really good, but the show was terrible. It was only in the last 5yr or so I learned they were a real band.)

 

[Emperor Norton I]

A comment for you Space Cadets:

Had the Beatles broken up, there is a very high chance the solo/post-group members would have toured a year or a couple years later, or perhaps even in terms of months afterward. There was an inkling, but the major force which kept them from touring was George Harrison, who had wanted to stop touring circa 1965 (the Beatles stopped touring in the OTL at the end of 1966). Without having to worry about one another, the individual members could do whatever they wanted. I think McCartney would most certainly tour, Lennon as well at some point, Ringo is Ringo, and George Harrison may not tour for an extended period of time before finally doing so. I think Harrison's first tour after the OTL breakup was 1974, but I'm not sure. There is also the fact that George may be open to touring because he won't feel the pressure of the Beatles or the public reaction to them.
It's also worth bearing in mind, alongside what I said there, that in this timeline, the Beatles would not have declared they would not tour; they would have broken up instead. So that's another factor.

 

[flippikat]

Fair point Emperor - without the weight of being The Beatles, it may be easier for the individual members to tour again with their own bands.

Keep in mind that in OTL John played a few live dates with Yoko & various incarnations of the Plastic Ono band while he was still technically a Beatle.

This raises a number of questions as to how each ex-Beatle would approach live concerts circa 1967. I think initially they'd have reasonably small bands, but Paul might be inclined to expand his band's lineup to play more complex arrangements on stage.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

Inspired by 60s American TV, and the bowlderization of anything human therein, one of the cornerstones of that era was the interpretation of youth culture as told by 45 year old writers, overseen by 60-something network executives, with the writers who wrote the generic music having come from the 40s generation. They all aped the Beatles, in an awkward way, well into the late 60s. See this and this. And it was all so out of date and a mix of anachronisms (see that 1963 sound with a 1967 look), but nonetheless.

The Beatles splitting up has to affect that somehow. I don't know how, but it'd be different.

***

By the way, I've been honing my love of Bob Dylan and I can't bear to fictionally murder him anymore.

EDIT:

Related to the first part, 60s sitcom TV also always f**ked up the hippies, because of what American TV was which was non-offensive bowlderization. They were constantly mocked and what they put on wasn't even hippies but just beatniks with hippie clothing, and wigs and no facial hair. That doesn't really relate to the topic, but it should be known to anyone doing 60s alternate history.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Thinking about this scenario (well, the Beatle half anyway); how would the band's legacy change if we only had the "red" era to judge them on?

 

[flippikat]

Thinking about this scenario (well, the Beatle half anyway); how would the band's legacy change if we only had the "red" era to judge them on?

The common opinion I suppose would be that they gave rock music a boost when it was needed, but a lot of speculation would be there about how they would've followed Revolver, with fans arguing over whether Paul, George, or John's late 60s career would have been the Beatles' direction.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Since one of the ideas discussed here was the Beach Boys completing Smile, I decided to give an attempted reconstruction of the album a listen. It's... something.

The common opinion I suppose would be that they gave rock music a boost when it was needed, but a lot of speculation would be there about how they would've followed Revolver, with fans arguing over whether Paul, George, or John's late 60s career would have been the Beatles' direction.

So there would still be a lot of "What if the Beatles didn't break up?"; makes sense.

 

[flippikat]

Since one of the ideas discussed here was the Beach Boys completing Smile, I decided to give an attempted reconstruction of the album a listen. It's... something.



So there would still be a lot of "What if the Beatles didn't break up?"; makes sense.

One of my favourite "what if" ideas is for the Beatles to split during the recording of Sgt Pepper, leaving it as an ATL lost album like Smile is in OTL. it gets even more interesting if the butterflies from that result in Brian Wilson completing Smile in 1967

Anyway, regarding a 1966 split for the Beatles (ie just after the last tour, and no attempt at any Pepper sessions), the questions of what they could have achieved would be even more open than OTL, because there's no miss-steps like Magical Mystery Tour (too unfocused) and Get Back/Let It Be (a mess, cobbled together by post-production) to show them up as actually being less-than-perfect.

 

[Nazi Space Spy]

Well, you just butterflied away the Bob Dylan concert I went to the other night .

 

[Emperor Norton I]

Well, you just butterflied away the Bob Dylan concert I went to the other night .

"Oh momma, can this really be the end?"

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Been Bob Spitz's bio of the Beatles, and I wanted to touch on this idea again -- specifically, what would be the best PoD (post June 21, when they finished recording Revolver) for the band to break up? Some ideas:

• maybe George Harrison's comment "I'm not a Beatle anymore" is overheard by the press?
• taking the easy way out, one or all of the Beatles might have been killed in Manilla or America (arguably not the OP)
• Brian Epstein's attempted suicide might have succeeded
• George Harrison OTL was very skeptical of Paul's album idea; maybe he flat out refuses to be a part of it, and just leaves?
• not even sure this helps, but John Lennon almost didn't meet Yoko Ono

Any thoughts on the best approach?

 

[Glass Onion]

Well with the easy way out you could just have one of the band's leaders die. If Lennon is assassinated for example the band probably ends then and there.

George Harrison wasn't interested in continuing on with the band either at the time-though he sometimes claimed to enjoy Sgt. Pepper later on. George Harrison was more interested in his Hindu religious education and expanding love affair with India then returning to the studio.

If Lennon is dead-George Harrison will have that much more incentive to follow his instincts-and that point you'd just have Paul and Ringo-the Beatles as we know them would be over.


Of course that's the easy way of doing it but in any event I think the key is John Lennon.

The problem with the idea of the Beatles and why I didn't comment much on this thread-is despite contemporary rumors-the Beatles weren't that close to disbanding. They did abandon live performance after 1966 and pursued relative solo projects-which without the precedent of the Beatles does look like disbanding-but to borrow a phrase from John McCain-the fundamentals of the band were still strong. Lennon and McCartney's working relationship was still strong-and Lennon had not yet come to think of himself as a solo artist.

Lennon was the one who more than anyone else insisted that touring had to end-but the end of touring-and contemplating a life beyond being a Beatle caused a kind of existential crisis. He was only just beginning to consider what life beyond the band would look like-he wasn't ready to be a solo artist yet-and he was still on friendly terms with Paul McCartney. I don't think he was ready to cut off all ties from McCartney-which is what a breakup would entail. In a real sense the end of the Beatles was the end of the working relationship between Lennon and McCartney. The Beatles were more than just John and Paul and backing group-but the others did continue to work with each other intermittently through 1975. The only one who didn't work with the others after 1970 was Paul McCartney. In late 1966 from what I can tell Lennon wasn't in a place where he was ready to completely divorce himself from McCartney.

Unlike in 1968-1969 Lennon didn't have a clear path ahead of him as a solo artist.

And Paul McCartney always preferred being a Beatle to being a solo artist-so he's not going to be the one who walks away from the band in late 1966.

According to You Never Give Me Your Money-when George Harrison quit in 1969 the Beatles had a secret agreement to disband the band if he did not return. Had Harrison decided to quit they might have considered something similar-but in the end their working relationship was still strong enough that I would expect the remaining Beatles to continue working together. If the Beatles changed their name without Harrison they'd still be the Beatles for all intents and purposes.

Therefore I think you'd need to put John Lennon in a much weaker position than he was to the point where he isn't able to contribute much when the Beatles return the studio. There are ways of doing that-having Brian Epstein die might do that, adding it to the death of Bob Dylan might make matters worse.

The question is how to alter the circumstances so that John Lennon isn't able to contribute much of anything when the Beatles return to the studio.

It probably involves some mixture of a tragedy like an even earlier death of Brian Epstein and a worse drug habit.

At that point the band disbands-because Harrison was clearly interested in leaving-and then you get down to McCartney and Starkey.

The Beatles could have disbanded at any point from around August 1968 to September 1969 without much needing to happen differently. That's the point where you had people quitting and coming back reluctantly.

But having them split in 1966 would require significant changes despite contemporary rumors that claimed that they were on the verge of a split.

Of course for legal reasons I doubt that the Beatles would announce their split in 1966 for much the same reason that they continued to exist as a band on paper beyond Lennon's departure. This is the period where their contract was being renewed-and if the band has split up and everyone knows the band has split up then they've lost substantial leverage in those negotiations. For that reason I would expect them to keep up the facade of the band still being around until the contract is signed.

The 1967 contract wouldn't have to change too much-since it allowed them to pursue solo careers.

Unless they split for some obvious reason like a member dying they aren't going to make their split public until at least January 1967, which means as far as the public is concerned the band will have ended in 1967 rather than 1966. Same as the band broke up for all intents and purposes in 1969 but the Beatles split didn't become public until April 1970.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

<snip>

Much thanks; it sounds like Epstein and Dylan dying this year would be enough to "break" John and kill the group.