WI: Beatles Album in Late 1966/Early 1967

[flippikat]

I think the best way to get a new Beatles album in late 1966 would be to seriously change the Beatles schedule.

If The Beatles took a break after finishing recording Revolver instead of going on a mini-tour of Germany, Japan & The Philippines right away, they may come back after the summer of 1966 with a better idea of how they want to stage a live show (and some new music, recorded with less production sheen so it can be played in concert).

The rationale could be "We didn't play any shows after Revolver, because we didn't know how we could play it live.. but we recorded the new album with one eye on live performance - and we think we have the technology & the venues to do it in early 1967.."

In 1966 there seems to have been a fair bit of garage-ish psychedelic music (the likes of 13th Floor Elevators, Velvet Underground, even early Pink Floyd) with some strong R'n'B influences.. and most importantly this music was being played live. Perhaps seeing some bands in a break during that summer inspires The Beatles more than trying to win a production race?

 

[Emperor Norton I]

I think a more placid '66 would help the Beatles. (Although you could argue that would remove a key component of what made them what they were). It really didn't need to be all that it was, and was a perfect storm of problems I probably don't need to go over again. The Beatles were already growing tired of touring, with the band drowned out by screams and John Lennon later saying their live shows eventually just became a be-in and they thought their playing and signing was becoming lousy because they couldn't hear themselves, and George Harrison wanting to stop live shows and touring in 1965. That said, it was 1966 that completely pushed it to be a critical issue that was dealt with right at the end of that last show in Candlestick Park. And there was a stigma in the group thereafter of doing live shows, at least with George Harrison.

Things aren't destined, so the Beatles could have meandered on the issue, or stopped touring for a time to tour later, or have come back in 1968 or 1970 or something to play live shows again, and there's a pet topic I've noticed Glass Onion has of the Beatles following the lead of the Who and investing in a louder sound system so the audience could hear them.

 

[flippikat]

I think a more placid '66 would help the Beatles. (Although you could argue that would remove a key component of what made them what they were). It really didn't need to be all that it was, and was a perfect storm of problems I probably don't need to go over again. The Beatles were already growing tired of touring, with the band drowned out by screams and John Lennon later saying their live shows eventually just became a be-in and they thought their playing and signing was becoming lousy because they couldn't hear themselves, and George Harrison wanting to stop live shows and touring in 1965. That said, it was 1966 that completely pushed it to be a critical issue that was dealt with right at the end of that last show in Candlestick Park. And there was a stigma in the group thereafter of doing live shows, at least with George Harrison.

Things aren't destined, so the Beatles could have meandered on the issue, or stopped touring for a time to tour later, or have come back in 1968 or 1970 or something to play live shows again, and there's a pet topic I've noticed Glass Onion has of the Beatles following the lead of the Who and investing in a louder sound system so the audience could hear them.

There's a lot to consider there. In hindsight 1966 is a pivotal year for The Beatles.. It sealed the decision to stop live performances, George Harrison had an unprecidented 3 songs on an album (probably raising his expectations for the future) and the break at the end of the year gave all of them a chance to explore life outside of the group - including the first time John and Yoko met.

Change any of that, and you have major butterflies.

If George made a stronger point to the others about concerts in late 1965, maybe the whole live set-up of 1966 could have been revamped with greater amplification and maybe a different touring schedule & different venues than OTL.

[edit] That opens up a path for another "What if": If The Beatles wanted to reassert their credentials as a live band in 1966, How would they do that? A re-think of their approach to concerts in 1966 instead of 1969, may have some interesting results.

I can imagine if no change is made to OTLs 1966 tour schedule and The Beatles don't take a break before recording again we could have a very world-weary sounding set of songs emerge.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

On the topic of American butchering this album, which came up a few posts ago, that is an interesting point. The change happened when the Beatles resigned their recording contract. I can't remember the year the Beatles signed. It was either 1966 or the earlier part of 1967. In any event, the contract outlined that Capitol records had to release the same albums as were being released by EMI/Parlophone. That did not prevent them from creating compilations (as you see with Hey Jude and Magical Mystery Tour), but they could no longer do something like delete a song from an album and release it on a single or another album, or not release a Beatles album as intended and instead reassemble the songs to create an album.

Previous to that new recording contract, it was the practice with every British band or artist that the American distributor would create albums, EPs and singles unique to the American market from the assorted material the artists were outputting in the British market. You can see that with the Rolling Stones, the Animals, etc. The Beatles contract is what changed all that, and why it faded away starting in 1967.

Depending on when this Gap Album would be released, it may come before that contract, and thereby open up Capitol butchering of it. That said, Capitol records was already moving away from that practice themselves. They were no longer releasing totally different albums in the American market (except for "Yesterday and Today"), Rubber Soul was only so-so different in America, and Revolver was the same except for the songs which were deleted from it to give it a shorter running time and to fill out Yesterday and Today. So they may not change the album, or they may only delete a few songs or add a few songs. The danger there would be if it violated the concept album, if the Beatles went with that idea of a concept album based around their home. It wouldn't necessarily do that. If Capitol only deleted songs it wouldn't do that. And if they didn't touch it at all, it obviously wouldn't affect that. However, if Capitol chose to tack on singles, if singles did not relate to the concept, it would disrupt the flow and violate the concept album and be out of place.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

Another thing to note is that Paul McCartney was brainstorming an album circa this period to be called "Paul McCartney Goes Too Far", which would have been an album of experimental music. The title was Lennon's suggestion. It never came to fruition, but had it, it would have been the first outing of a Beatle in a solo album, mirroring Lennon's early solo material of the Unfinished Music duology. It very well could have come to fruition in this setting, or perhaps have been started and ceased, with anything that could be salvaged ending up on a Beatles record.

 

[flippikat]

On the topic of American butchering this album, which came up a few posts ago, that is an interesting point. The change happened when the Beatles resigned their recording contract. I can't remember the year the Beatles signed. It was either 1966 or the earlier part of 1967. In any event, the contract outlined that Capitol records had to release the same albums as were being released by EMI/Parlophone. That did not prevent them from creating compilations (as you see with Hey Jude and Magical Mystery Tour), but they could no longer do something like delete a song from an album and release it on a single or another album, or not release a Beatles album as intended and instead reassemble the songs to create an album.

After a quick flick through Lewisohn's "Complete Beatles Chronicle", I've got that date.

The renewed contract was effective January 27 1967, so if the album after Revolver was released for Christmas 1966 it may have had a different tracklist in the USA.

In an ATL, that could be a compelling reason to get them into the studio one last time before the new year - maybe Capitol offers them time in an 8-track studio in the USA as a "sweetener"?

 

[Emperor Norton I]

After a quick flick through Lewisohn's "Complete Beatles Chronicle", I've got that date.

The renewed contract was effective January 27 1967, so if the album after Revolver was released for Christmas 1966 it may have had a different tracklist in the USA.

In an ATL, that could be a compelling reason to get them into the studio one last time before the new year - maybe Capitol offers them time in an 8-track studio in the USA as a "sweetener"?

I think it would likely be largely the same tracklisting, but, as I said, it is those potential changes and differences (minor as they may be) that are still a possibility and would be a problem. But as I also said, the trend was already moving towards the British and American releases being the same, so it may not be different.

By the way, there have been a few titles I've had in mind for the Gap Album. One is "Backbeats and Back Streets" (or just "Backbeats" or just "Back Streets"). Another is "The Beatles". An album covering very personal topics would seem to be one that could have been named after the Beatles. And we're butterflying away the White Album anyway.

 

[Stolengood]

Why not just "Backbeat"? Like the eventual Stu Sutcliffe movie?

...or is that too pithy?

 

[Emperor Norton I]

Why not just "Backbeat"? Like the eventual Stu Sutcliffe movie?

...or is that too pithy?

I'm throwing myself under the bus here too. Reading it, it may come across as too "jovial" may be the word. Like the kind of thing you'd see earlier in the Beatles career but which was too on the nose by that stage, due to containing the word "Beat".

 

[Stolengood]

I'm throwing myself under the bus here too. Reading it, it may come across as too "jovial" may be the word. Like the kind of thing you'd see earlier in the Beatles career but which was too on the nose by that stage, due to containing the word "Beat".

Hmmmm... this would be after Revolver, so... maybe one of their unused Revolver titles?

 

[Emperor Norton I]

Hmmmm... this would be after Revolver, so... maybe one of their unused Revolver titles?

My gut feeling would be that they'd go with a new title. And they'd probably make a list of titles to sort through before deciding on one.

Does anyone happen to know any alternate titles kicked around during the Sgt Pepper's period? They could reasonably go with one of those if there is a list of them.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

I do think the immediate major change outside of the Beatles would be Brian Wilson and the Beach Boys, and I do think that deserves further discussion. The reason Wilson gave up on Smile (which was heavily promoted and awaited) was that he heard what the Beatles ended up releasing, and felt the Beatles had already got "there" first. As has been said previously, while the Gap Album would not be something deficient, it wouldn't have been as far an evolution as Sgt Pepper, even if it were close to it. That may be just enough to keep Brian Wilson from giving up, allowing for Smile to be released. Then again, it didn't seem to take much to push Brian Wilson over his emotional and self confidence limit, so the Gap album may also be enough to do it since it will be a step up from what was already done with Revolver, which was a step up from Pet Sounds.

Even if you don't know much about the Beach Boys, if you know just their songs, you can tell that something went off track along the way. And that was when Brian Wilson mentally and emotionally collapsed. The more I look into it, the comparison I drew to the space race and the Beach Boys being the Russians comes off as more and more accurate. Whereas the Beatles had 3 major innovators (and Ringo), and were pushing forward and so far as I can recall did not receive major crushing opposition on their direction from anyone in authority, the Beach Boys were quite different. Brian Wilson was the leader of everything the Beach Boys were doing, and was the one pushing them forward, and they really were a mouth piece for his musical genius by a certain point. And along the way, the label was pushing back against him and the others began questioning him, and Mike Love especially questioned and put down what Brian did. The name of the album Pet Sounds comes from Mike Love saying "Who's going to listen to this shit? Dog ears?". (Nobody should like Mike Love. He's a bad human being. And all the Beach Boys, at one time or another, had a problem with Mike Love. Especially Dennis Wilson. Think if Ringo was a jerk with a giant ego and said he was a co-writer on all the songs and tried to take credit for what the Beatles did). That's where the album "Summer Days (And Summer Nights!!)" came from; Brian Wilson got push back from the previous album "Today" and they made him put out something that sounded more like what they expected (it was kind of subversive because Summer Days did push forward while hiding it under songs that sounded like what would have been expected). The people around Wilson seemed to actively pressure for the same old thing and what was expected, whereas even if the Beatles' audience did so as well, the Beatles pushed forward what they wanted to do and everyone ended up liking it regardless. That all came to a head around Smile, because the studio was pushing back on the time and money that was going into the album, and the other Beach Boys said they didn't like what they were hearing when they returned from an England tour and heard what Brian Wilson was doing.
After Brian Wilson gave up and collapsed mentally, it became Mike Love's band, and it was at that point that the Beach Boys became basically their own tribute act, playing their greatest surf hits and dressing up and acting like what they were expected to by the simplest stereotype. I've compared it before to the Beatles sticking together past 1970, and around 1972, putting on mop tops and teddy boy outfits and singing "She Loves You" and "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" on some Holiday Inn band tours. It's embarrassing. And you can see the limits of Mike Love's version of the Beach Boys in the lack of hits under his leadership, and the increasingly terrible albums. The only hit they had was "Kokomo", which wasn't written by Mike Love except for some lyrical change or two, and is a very soulless song for a banal middle aged listenership. I like "Kokomo", but that's what it is. And if that one song is the best thing you've done in decades and decades, it doesn't say a lot. That collapse came to a head with "Summer in Paradise", released in 1992, which sold less than 10,000 copies and was essentially Mike Love's album through and through.

That's a hell of a sad path for a band which was hanging in with and evolving alongside of the Beatles and the Rolling Stones and Bob Dylan, and was America's version of the Beatles. So anything that could keep them Brian Wilson's group for longer, or even butterfly away what Mike Love did, is very much a positive.

(There's also something to be said about a what-if concerning Mike Love being kicked out of the band).

 

[Glass Onion]

I think a more placid '66 would help the Beatles. (Although you could argue that would remove a key component of what made them what they were). It really didn't need to be all that it was, and was a perfect storm of problems I probably don't need to go over again. The Beatles were already growing tired of touring, with the band drowned out by screams and John Lennon later saying their live shows eventually just became a be-in and they thought their playing and signing was becoming lousy because they couldn't hear themselves, and George Harrison wanting to stop live shows and touring in 1965. That said, it was 1966 that completely pushed it to be a critical issue that was dealt with right at the end of that last show in Candlestick Park. And there was a stigma in the group thereafter of doing live shows, at least with George Harrison.

Things aren't destined, so the Beatles could have meandered on the issue, or stopped touring for a time to tour later, or have come back in 1968 or 1970 or something to play live shows again, and there's a pet topic I've noticed Glass Onion has of the Beatles following the lead of the Who and investing in a louder sound system so the audience could hear them.

The Who thing wasn't my idea, though I don't remember which poster raised that possibility. My pet topic is a Beatles tour of sorts in 1968, or more basically keeping that year from being the disaster that it was for the group. I think regardless of what happens in 1966, 1967 is a lost cause in terms of touring because even with butterflies, they aren't going to be recording material that can easily be replicated live until the return to basics moment, even with better equipment. There inability to play 1966-1967 material live is still a big issue even if the 1966 tour is a wonderful experience, as they aren't going to be wanting to play mostly material from 1965 or earlier in 1967.

Also is it me or is one of the rejected Revolver names, The Beatles on Safari, a decent title for the White album with all those animal songs?

 

[Athelstane]

On the topic of American butchering this album, which came up a few posts ago, that is an interesting point. The change happened when the Beatles resigned their recording contract. I can't remember the year the Beatles signed. It was either 1966 or the earlier part of 1967. In any event, the contract outlined that Capitol records had to release the same albums as were being released by EMI/Parlophone. That did not prevent them from creating compilations (as you see with Hey Jude and Magical Mystery Tour), but they could no longer do something like delete a song from an album and release it on a single or another album, or not release a Beatles album as intended and instead reassemble the songs to create an album.

Previous to that new recording contract, it was the practice with every British band or artist that the American distributor would create albums, EPs and singles unique to the American market from the assorted material the artists were outputting in the British market. You can see that with the Rolling Stones, the Animals, etc. The Beatles contract is what changed all that, and why it faded away starting in 1967.

Depending on when this Gap Album would be released, it may come before that contract, and thereby open up Capitol butchering of it. That said, Capitol records was already moving away from that practice themselves. They were no longer releasing totally different albums in the American market (except for "Yesterday and Today"), Rubber Soul was only so-so different in America, and Revolver was the same except for the songs which were deleted from it to give it a shorter running time and to fill out Yesterday and Today. So they may not change the album, or they may only delete a few songs or add a few songs. The danger there would be if it violated the concept album, if the Beatles went with that idea of a concept album based around their home. It wouldn't necessarily do that. If Capitol only deleted songs it wouldn't do that. And if they didn't touch it at all, it obviously wouldn't affect that. However, if Capitol chose to tack on singles, if singles did not relate to the concept, it would disrupt the flow and violate the concept album and be out of place.

I think this is an important element that many people overlook in why the Beatles began stretching out and altering their release cycles. But that merely came in conjunction with the general burnout the band was suffering at this point, and their growing interest in making greater use of the studio to make artistic, rather than merely commercial statements.

Revolver marked the end of the "twice a year" LP cycle for the Beatles. After that, the Beatles were only able to manage one per year - Sgt Pepper in summer '67, White Album in fall of '68, Abbey Road in fall '69, Let it Be in spring 1970. And yes, I know, Let It Be had been recorded in the winter of '69 - but its failure (in the band's eyes) drove the rapid return to try again with Abbey Road, sooner, I think, than it would have done so had they been pleased with the results of Get Back and actually released that in the spring/summer of '69.

It seems strange to think of the period between Revolver and Pepper as a "missing album," like the planetary orbit between Mars and Jupiter. A lot of things came together to change the dynamic for the band, and once they did, the Beatles would never go back. And they weren't the only band that happened to.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

The Who thing wasn't my idea, though I don't remember which poster raised that possibility. My pet topic is a Beatles tour of sorts in 1968, or more basically keeping that year from being the disaster that it was for the group. I think regardless of what happens in 1966, 1967 is a lost cause in terms of touring because even with butterflies, they aren't going to be recording material that can easily be replicated live until the return to basics moment, even with better equipment. There inability to play 1966-1967 material live is still a big issue even if the 1966 tour is a wonderful experience, as they aren't going to be wanting to play mostly material from 1965 or earlier in 1967.

They could play the "unplugged" versions of those songs; not necessarily acoustic, but the versions they could do with the set up they could have. Think Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds with just electric guitars, drums, and a keyboard. A stripped down sound is what I'm getting at.

If memory serves, Brian Wilson worked on something similar for the Beach Boys so they could play their studio-only songs live.

Also is it me or is one of the rejected Revolver names, The Beatles on Safari, a decent title for the White album with all those animal songs?

It reminds me of the early Beach Boy. It certainly could be the Beatles' version of the Pet Sounds title, although I also don't like that title much myself.

I think this is an important element that many people overlook in why the Beatles began stretching out and altering their release cycles. But that merely came in conjunction with the general burnout the band was suffering at this point, and their growing interest in making greater use of the studio to make artistic, rather than merely commercial statements.

Revolver marked the end of the "twice a year" LP cycle for the Beatles. After that, the Beatles were only able to manage one per year - Sgt Pepper in summer '67, White Album in fall of '68, Abbey Road in fall '69, Let it Be in spring 1970. And yes, I know, Let It Be had been recorded in the winter of '69 - but its failure (in the band's eyes) drove the rapid return to try again with Abbey Road, sooner, I think, than it would have done so had they been pleased with the results of Get Back and actually released that in the spring/summer of '69.

It seems strange to think of the period between Revolver and Pepper as a "missing album," like the planetary orbit between Mars and Jupiter. A lot of things came together to change the dynamic for the band, and once they did, the Beatles would never go back. And they weren't the only band that happened to.

Perhaps fair enough. At the same time, the Beatles could have released an album in between that OTL gap, which is the point.

On the note of the White Album, that's also a dual release year's worth of material. And you're forgetting about Magical Mystery Tour (1967) and Yellow Submarine (1969). And I do realize that MMT is an EP in it's true form, and the unique material on Yellow Submarine isn't much different. The point though is not to keep the Beatles at a pre-1967 output of a single every 3 months and an album every 6 months. The point is simply what if they had released an album in that OTL gap period between Revolver and what in the OTL became PL/SFF and then Sgt Pepper.

 

[flippikat]

I do think the immediate major change outside of the Beatles would be Brian Wilson and the Beach Boys, and I do think that deserves further discussion. The reason Wilson gave up on Smile (which was heavily promoted and awaited) was that he heard what the Beatles ended up releasing, and felt the Beatles had already got "there" first. As has been said previously, while the Gap Album would not be something deficient, it wouldn't have been as far an evolution as Sgt Pepper, even if it were close to it. That may be just enough to keep Brian Wilson from giving up, allowing for Smile to be released. Then again, it didn't seem to take much to push Brian Wilson over his emotional and self confidence limit, so the Gap album may also be enough to do it since it will be a step up from what was already done with Revolver, which was a step up from Pet Sounds.

You raise some good points about the Beach Boys here - but I think it depends on what sort of album the Beatles come up with in the winter of 1966/7.

If we assume the Beatles put out Revolver around the same time as OTL and put a follow-up album of new songs in late 1966-early 1967, then they may not have the studio time to make a big production. That could mean a more basic Beatles album - perhaps one that's psychedelic without the studio trickery - taking the psychedelic garage-rock that was around in 1966 and turning it up several notches. In this timeline the Beatles could unintentionally be pioneers of acid-rock.

That takes some pressure off the Beach Boys - and maybe the Smile sessions don't stall as they did in OTL once Brian heard some what the Beatles were up to?

As for the Beatles, a step-back from the production race might make them keen to play concerts again - especially if they have some really high-energy tunes to unleash - but the equipment would need a major upgrade. That's where George Harrison's friendship with Eric Clapton may come in handy...