WI: Brian Epstein lives?

[Emperor Norton I]

I found this recently:
http://eppylover.livejournal.com/88692.html

It discusses some style, etc. And you can see the picture of unkempt Epstein. That seems to indicate Epstein was capable of being laid back, so I do seriously wonder what effect India and transcendental meditation would have on him. You may see a Brian Epstein more relaxed than the prim and proper one we saw before.

Yes, that was McCartney's reservation towards the project.

That does bring to mind the dynamic of this alternate Beatles. One of the biggest prospects about this topic, in my opinion, is the potential continuation of a "John is in fact the leader of the group" dynamic. Not necessarily totally as it was during the earlier phase of the group, but I don't think it would have gotten to the point where McCartney was the center of the universe. Both for reasons of Lennon not being as collapsed (homebuddy life, Epstein's death, not knowing if he wants to be a Beatle, divorce, heroin, etc) and I think Epstein wouldn't favor a McCartney-centric dynamic, as well as the fact that McCartney doesn't have any need to step up since there's no void to make up for.

Those potential dynamics of John as the leader (de facto or de jure) or the group as more balanced all around does make for an interesting thing, as the OTL did (post-1967) become so McCartney-centric. It's more complex than that, since you still have a dynamic where John was viewed as the biggest kid and hence de facto leader, but McCartney did all his cheerleading for the group and hence became like de facto leader (though I don't think he'd say he was or was trying to be), and it became like John was king but regent McCartney was leading the show all too often. And it was often that McCartney was on one side and John, George and Ringo were on another. It's a bit of a complex clusterfuck, as complex and conflicting as human relationships and people themselves tend to be, but I hope you get the point. OTL was more McCartney, and this ATL could be either Lennon or Lennon/McCartney and more balanced all around.

 

[Glass Onion]

That does bring to mind the dynamic of this alternate Beatles. One of the biggest prospects about this topic, in my opinion, is the potential continuation of a "John is in fact the leader of the group" dynamic. Not necessarily totally as it was during the earlier phase of the group, but I don't think it would have gotten to the point where McCartney was the center of the universe. Both for reasons of Lennon not being as collapsed (homebuddy life, Epstein's death, not knowing if he wants to be a Beatle, divorce, heroin, etc) and I think Epstein wouldn't favor a McCartney-centric dynamic, as well as the fact that McCartney doesn't have any need to step up since there's no void to make up for.

Those potential dynamics of John as the leader (de facto or de jure) or the group as more balanced all around does make for an interesting thing, as the OTL did (post-1967) become so McCartney-centric. It's more complex than that, since you still have a dynamic where John was viewed as the biggest kid and hence de facto leader, but McCartney did all his cheerleading for the group and hence became like de facto leader (though I don't think he'd say he was or was trying to be), and it became like John was king but regent McCartney was leading the show all too often. And it was often that McCartney was on one side and John, George and Ringo were on another. It's a bit of a complex clusterfuck, as complex and conflicting as human relationships and people themselves tend to be, but I hope you get the point. OTL was more McCartney, and this ATL could be either Lennon or Lennon/McCartney and more balanced all around.

Lennon's abdication of leadership predates Epstein's death. McCartney was the dominant artist on both Revolver and Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. Rubber Soul was the last album they made in which John Lennon was the dominant force in the group. While there's no denying that Lennon wrote great material in 1967, he was disengaged to a large extent. TM allowed him to emerge from a metaphorical slumber. I see the White Album sessions as the last time Lennon was truly interested in the Beatles as his main artistic focus. If he was not on heroin, and if his homelife were somewhat less of a mess, he may have been even more assertive than he was even to the point of challenging McCartney's leadership. But after two years of McCartney leadership, I doubt Lennon could ever regain control, at least not without a better relationship with George Harrison. Even then such a fight could easily split the band apart.

 

[BillyShears]

Does anyone know enough to talk about the legal stuff about Seltaeb which was still evidently an issue when Epstein died? All I know is that it was a clusterfuck which resulted in a legal battle.

There's a bit about that in Philip Norman's Shout, I seem to remember. I'll have to look it up.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

Lennon's abdication of leadership predates Epstein's death. McCartney was the dominant artist on both Revolver and Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. Rubber Soul was the last album they made in which John Lennon was the dominant force in the group. While there's no denying that Lennon wrote great material in 1967, he was disengaged to a large extent. TM allowed him to emerge from a metaphorical slumber. I see the White Album sessions as the last time Lennon was truly interested in the Beatles as his main artistic focus. If he was not on heroin, and if his homelife were somewhat less of a mess, he may have been even more assertive than he was even to the point of challenging McCartney's leadership. But after two years of McCartney leadership, I doubt Lennon could ever regain control, at least not without a better relationship with George Harrison. Even then such a fight could easily split the band apart.

I don't know if I can agree with that. Don't get me wrong, Revolver was the transition album in more ways than one, one of them being from Lennon being at the forefront to somewhere lost in the mix, with Paul taking charge more and more. But I don't see it as when Paul became the leading figure and John became number two or number 1b, or however you wanna classify it. Just as the transition to what would become that situation. "Pepper's" is certainly the first sign of that, where it would be McCartney saying when he was in the mood to do an album and what it could be, and the others going along with it, and McCartney being the one most interested in being a Beatle.

My take on the Lennon situation is that it was a funk which turned into a very long term meandering funk. The reasons for that have already been stated (not being sure he wants to do it anymore, end of touring, etc), and I'd say the lynchpin of why it became a long term meandering funk is Brian Epstein's death. From Lennon's statements about it, that seems to be the real moment where the ground was seriously taken out from under him, regardless of any previous uncertainty. That was when it seems like it was the point when there wasn't any pulling Lennon out of it. And that was when McCartney really took the reigns, because Epstein was gone so McCartney, out of the view that he could and had to keep the band going, became of the one that said "alright, let's make a record". And Lennon was in an even deeper hole in the wake of Epstein's death so there were voids to be filled which McCartney (intentionally or not) filled.

On your mention of challenging leadership and all of that, I think my comparison to a king and a regent before were apt, with Lennon and McCartney being each respectably. The Beatles were ruled by a duology of Lennon and McCartney, and whoever had the hegemony in that relationship had the hegemony of the group. On the other hand, the view was that Lennon was the leader. By about 1966, it became a situation where Lennon was viewed as the leader but was incapacitated in his own funk, so McCartney stepped up. Hence the king and regent analogy. The king is still the king, but the regent is de facto ruler on all too many occasions. A lot of the Beatles dynamic was de facto. That's why I don't agree with the view that it would be a fist fight for Lennon to get back into it. It also doesn't have to be a situation of Lennon going back to number 1 with McCartney knocked down to his number 2; they can both be on equal footing (relatively), which is what I meant when I mentioned the Beatles being more well rounded all around. More so Lennon stepping up rather than McCartney stepping down. McCartney didn't view himself as being the leader or trying to be so, and Lennon himself seems to have retained a view of himself as the leader were there one. I don't know the exact feelings of Ringo Starr or George Harrison, though from what I know I would lean towards them viewing Lennon as the head Beatle were there one. But, again, the king was incapacitated so a regent stepped up. I also recall a Billy Preston Q&A from the early 90s where he was asked about who was the leader or it was brought up somehow, and he said John Lennon. And that was the "Get Back" sessions. Regardless of the situation and the de facto, the others seemed to still think of Lennon as chief regardless of whatever was going on. So if Lennon got out of his funk, I don't think there'd be a blood bath. I think the dynamic was more fluid than that. I think it would just be viewed as Lennon getting back to himself. A compare and contrast could be made to George Harrison. The reason Harrison was such a problem is that he came out of left field and upset the dynamic with his growth. Lennon on the other hand works within the established dynamic of a Lennon/McCartney lead group.

Bear in mind, by the way, I'm talking about an Epstein living reality. Not the OTL. If we're talking about an OTL situation where Lennon pulls himself together and pulls himself up somewhere in 1968 or something, that's a different story and could lead to tension and some problems. The tension wouldn't be because of Lennon taking more prominence so much as it would be because of assumptions made of what one another were doing and the bits of bad blood from the feeling that McCartney wanted to rule the group.

 

[Glass Onion]

McCartney may not have assumed full direction of the Beatles by Revolver, but I would still argue that it was the first album he was the leading artist on. It was the first album to feature more largely McCartney penned material than Lennon material. Revolver has six McCartney songs on it to Lennon's five. That may not be much of a difference, but that was a shift. Even on Rubber Soul, that ratio was reversed. Also, Revolver was McCartney at the height of his powers, and the album includes some of his best material. Even Tomorrow Never Knows, Lennon's best song on the album, was heavily influenced by McCartney's experimentation with tape loops and sound effects.

Back to the idea of Brian Epstein surviving, I want to consider the possibility of live performances in 1968. 1967 was a lost cause as far as that went, memories of the 1966 tour were too fresh, and even if they had wanted to, you can't play Pepper live, or at least you couldn't then. But with the back to basics movement in 1968 the Beatles will probably once again be recording material that can be used in a live show. Epstein will want the Beatles to play live again. Now I think a Beatles 1968 tour is out of the question, but considering the fact that both Lennon and McCartney expressed an interest in performing at the time, and considering the fact that Epstein would arrange a venue for them as soon as possible if the band expressed any kind of interest in performing, I think some sort of live performance in 1968 is a genuine possibility with Epstein around.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

Back to the idea of Brian Epstein surviving, I want to consider the possibility of live performances in 1968. 1967 was a lost cause as far as that went, memories of the 1966 tour were too fresh, and even if they had wanted to, you can't play Pepper live, or at least you couldn't then. But with the back to basics movement in 1968 the Beatles will probably once again be recording material that can be used in a live show. Epstein will want the Beatles to play live again. Now I think a Beatles 1968 tour is out of the question, but considering the fact that both Lennon and McCartney expressed an interest in performing at the time, and considering the fact that Epstein would arrange a venue for them as soon as possible if the band expressed any kind of interest in performing, I think some sort of live performance in 1968 is a genuine possibility with Epstein around.

It depends on how George Harrison feels about it. I certainly feel preforming live would have been good. While the fans would be very excited, I don't think the Beatles would be dealing with the absolute screaming insanity that lead Lennon to say Beatles concerts became more a be-in than anything else. I have no basis in that factually except what I extrapolate from the way things were: the Beatles would have stopped touring for roughly 2 or so years, which could have calmed things down, and the audience had grown up a bit as well as had the Beatles. Preforming live would also inject the Beatles with more feeling of purpose, which had become lackadaisical without touring, and is something Lennon needs. Even in a universe where Lennon isn't so much removed since Epstein is still alive, it would be something that would do Lennon good. And it would certainly be something Epstein would jump on and cheer-lead.

Again, though, it depends on Harrison since Harrison seems the most of a stick in the mud about touring. The old cliche is George leaving the band, and Eric Clapton being brought aboard. That may be accurate, it may not be. I certainly think Epstein would do his damndest to avoid Harrison quitting the band no matter what the situation.

***

On the topic of the getting back to roots movement within the Beatles, something I have been brainstorming about for a while is the possibility of the Beatles rerecording some older material. On the Twickenham sessions, you can hear the Beatles play some of their previous songs like "Love Me Do". "One after 909" itself is an old Beatles song they never released before recording it for "Let it Be". Usually, it was just a way to break the tension, but it does inspire the possibility of the Beatles recording some of their earlier standards in their (then) current style on the alternate, back to basics album that would stand in for what "Let it Be" was in our reality, alongside with their new material. If not, they could certainly incorporate them into any live concert performance.

There was also material like "One After 909" which they had written years before but had never properly released, such as "Because I Know You Love Me So". They could have properly recorded that and released it as they did "909".

They could have done all this as it was without even having to go double album since "Let it Be" ended up only really having 10 songs.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

I came across this interview with Epstein:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKKA_wMQJKI

 

[flippikat]

It depends on how George Harrison feels about it. I certainly feel preforming live would have been good. While the fans would be very excited, I don't think the Beatles would be dealing with the absolute screaming insanity that lead Lennon to say Beatles concerts became more a be-in than anything else. I have no basis in that factually except what I extrapolate from the way things were: the Beatles would have stopped touring for roughly 2 or so years, which could have calmed things down, and the audience had grown up a bit as well as had the Beatles. Preforming live would also inject the Beatles with more feeling of purpose, which had become lackadaisical without touring, and is something Lennon needs. Even in a universe where Lennon isn't so much removed since Epstein is still alive, it would be something that would do Lennon good. And it would certainly be something Epstein would jump on and cheer-lead.

Again, though, it depends on Harrison since Harrison seems the most of a stick in the mud about touring. The old cliche is George leaving the band, and Eric Clapton being brought aboard. That may be accurate, it may not be. I certainly think Epstein would do his damndest to avoid Harrison quitting the band no matter what the situation.

***

On the topic of the getting back to roots movement within the Beatles, something I have been brainstorming about for a while is the possibility of the Beatles rerecording some older material. On the Twickenham sessions, you can hear the Beatles play some of their previous songs like "Love Me Do". "One after 909" itself is an old Beatles song they never released before recording it for "Let it Be". Usually, it was just a way to break the tension, but it does inspire the possibility of the Beatles recording some of their earlier standards in their (then) current style on the alternate, back to basics album that would stand in for what "Let it Be" was in our reality, alongside with their new material. If not, they could certainly incorporate them into any live concert performance.

Another thing to keep in mind is that amplification had come a long way from 1966 to 1968/9.. Even if the fans screamed, The Beatles would finally have a chance to play loud enough to hear themselves.

 

[Glass Onion]

I was not trying to suggest a Beatles tour in 1968 as interesting as that would be. Clearly, without a much earlier divergence that makes George Harrison content (no jelly beans?) enough to go along with it a tour is out of the question. I was thinking more along the lines of a one off concert somewhere. Given that Harrison only put his foot down about a concert after he quit, given that he went along with the rooftop concert, and given that he went along with the Hey Jude pseudo-performance, I think he could be dragged into some sort of one off performance. He wouldn't like it, but I can see him reluctantly going along with such a solitary performance.

 

[Glass Onion]

So, back to the subject of Magical Mystery Tour, I have an idea that might have given the film more cohesion, though I don't know if it had any chance of occurring. Essentially, what if the skeleton plot of the "Shades of a Personality" plot was used to organize the random adventures on the bus? Much of the film would still be improvised, but one or two scripted scenes to establish the illusion of plot would be filmed, along with different opening narration, and there would be a greater focus on the Beatles themselves rather than the Ringo's Aunt character and the old man character. Even the random nonsense from Magical Mystery Tour could fit into such a plot, because Shades of a Personality was about a mentally ill man. And the plot proposal was extant in 1967, because it formed the basis for the Up Against It proposal. Maybe it would make Magical Mystery Tour too depressing, but it could solve the "what the hell?" problem.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

That would be a possibility, though with that we get into really speculative territory. That's one of those things which could be a possibility, but which there's nothing to really solidify it.

What would the tone be, though? Would it be dramatic or would it be lighthearted and comedic? Drama would be an albatross in the happy days of the psychedelic era.

***

On the topic of Magical Mystery Tour, I do wonder at the prospect of Epstein pressuring them to do a full album rather than just releasing an EP. The EP lead Capitol to release it as a full LP in the United States by filling it out with the Beatles singles, to the annoyance of Lennon at least, though it proved popular enough an idea in later years that it was added to the official discography when it was formalized in 1987. Since the earlier idea for "Sgt Pepper" also originally entailed a double album, it wouldn't be outside the realm of possibility. All the more possibility of Magical Mystery Tour is released as a theatrical film rather than one for television.

Were it to be, and were they not included, "Strawberry Fields Forever", etc, would be a bit rarer in the US and would see more inclusion on compilations given they're not on a standard album. The situation would be similar to whatever they did concerning those songs elsewhere in the world. They would also see issue on whatever would stand in for "Past Masters".

 

[flippikat]

So, back to the subject of Magical Mystery Tour, I have an idea that might have given the film more cohesion, though I don't know if it had any chance of occurring. Essentially, what if the skeleton plot of the "Shades of a Personality" plot was used to organize the random adventures on the bus? Much of the film would still be improvised, but one or two scripted scenes to establish the illusion of plot would be filmed, along with different opening narration, and there would be a greater focus on the Beatles themselves rather than the Ringo's Aunt character and the old man character. Even the random nonsense from Magical Mystery Tour could fit into such a plot, because Shades of a Personality was about a mentally ill man. And the plot proposal was extant in 1967, because it formed the basis for the Up Against It proposal. Maybe it would make Magical Mystery Tour too depressing, but it could solve the "what the hell?" problem.

Here's another idea:

Keep the bus, put a few circus entertainers, stand-up comedians or other musicians & fill the rest of it with "general punters" (who are friends of the Beatles/actors, so their responses to the whole thing are 'on script'). Tell them all that they'll be brought home late that night.

Get the bus out to Blackpool or somewhere.. do the touristy things in the day, and then "surprise" the punters in the afternoon by informing them that the circus entertainers & Beatles are putting on a show that night (at a suitable hall, all pre-booked).

The live show provides the climax of the film, AND gives the Beatles a chance to play live. You could have either a small venue, closed to cast & crew, or a "secret show" announced at the last minute at somewhere like the Empress Ballroom.

Basically the end to the movie could be a "Beatles Variety Show" and a mini-concert - maybe 30 mins pre-show (the "tour" section), 30 mins or various novelties, and 30 minutes of Beatles playing live.

Thoughts?

 

[Glass Onion]

The problem there is that none of the Beatles want to play live in 1967. Even if they were, their 1967 material would be difficult to play live. Also the first part might run into the first major problem they had historically, nothing would happen on the bus tour.

It is hard to imagine a salvaged Magical Mystery Tour. It probably would have been a disaster even with Epstein.

If they do an album, I can see them doing a version of Cry Baby Cry, the earliest inkling of which may have predated Epstein's death. I know it was released in 1968, but it wasn't an Indian song. Lennon was talking about it during the Pepper sessions, or at least that's what Hunter Davies said.. Yes I know his account was heavily censored etc, but when he talks about things he personally witnessed, I think I can believe him. Granted the song changed dramatically, but there was a version of it lying around, which means push comes to shove, it's on the album.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

There's also "Across the Universe", or something resembling it. The basic notes were worked on during the Sgt Pepper session, though they may be put together differently and added onto differently and tweaked differently, leading to some alternate reality song that we can tell would have been "Across the Universe" in our reality.

Speaking of:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqDvtR0-Hx4

You also have "Only A Northern Song", "It's All Too Much", "You Know My Name", "Carnival of Light", and something called "Anything" (which may only be a backing track; just read about it. Never heard it). The problem with that list is that there aren't really songs that stand alone, the only exception perhaps being "It's All Too Much", which isn't all that strong. They'd really be more along the lines of filler. So they'd need to do more than just go to that well.

 

[flippikat]

One more thought on the idea of a 1967 live show - as part of Magical Mystery Tour or in another setting.

In the middle of the MMT recording sessions, the Beach Boys released 'Smiley Smile', which was mostly re-recorded versions of songs from their abandoned Smile album sessions.

The big deal about Smiley Smile was that the re-recordings were basic, basic enough to play live. They even were re-working Pet Sounds tracks to play live around this time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dwop8ki7tWU

Maybe in an ATL, knowledge of what the Beach Boys were up to inspires The Beatles to re-vamp existing songs in a basic arrangement for live performance, or write some new songs without as much production?

Pet Sounds inspired the move towards Sgt Pepper, maybe the Beach Boys can influence The Beatles away from the production race too?

 

[Romantic Nihilist]

That's a point.. I wonder what of The Beach Boys in all of this?

 

[flippikat]

That's a point.. I wonder what of The Beach Boys in all of this?

Remembering that Brian died in the middle of Magical Mystery Tour sessions, there's potential for a re-think in there somewhere.

All it needs is some motivation to get out of the production race.

 

[PyrrhusVictorius]

My hope is that Epstein simply could have kept the band focused and united. With the rapid advancement in recording equipment during the late 60s - early 70s, The Beatles could have become innovators in the field of electronic music, using synthesizers and other developments to keep their sound fresh. I believe Both George (Electronic Music album in 1969) and Paul had an interest in this style. Interestingly Epstein also had an interest in this emerging experimentalism, being rumoured as a possible manager of the iconic Velvet Underground in the months before his death.

 

[flippikat]

My hope is that Epstein simply could have kept the band focused and united.
With the rapid advancement in recording equipment during the late 60s - early 70s, The Beatles could have become innovators in the field of electronic music, using synthesizers and other developments to keep their sound fresh. I believe Both George (Electronic Music album in 1969) and Paul had an interest in this style.
Interestingly Epstein also had an interest in this emerging experimentalism, being rumoured as a possible manager of the iconic Velvet Underground in the months before his death.

I'm not sure the Velvet Underground had much to do with synthesizers, but they could be an influence on The Beatles taking their sound away from the production race.

From what I've read, the connection between the Beatles and the Velvets was Brian Epstein's New York lawyer, Nat Weiss (who was also friends with the Velvets manager Steve Sesnick)

What if Brian Epstein lives, then arranges via Weiss/Sesnick for the Velvet Underground to come to London in September 1967, initially to play a few shows & record their 2nd album?

You never know what their influence might have been on The Beatles post-Pepper direction. Another side-effect is that if the Velvets gain a little more success in the UK than they had in the USA, their career would pan-out differently.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

I'd like to bring up the potential, potential negative point no one considers. It may not be valid, so don't take it out of context and make it canon reality as oh so many historians (amateur or otherwise) do with history: Brian Epstein may be a liability.

Epstein had a drug habit, the point of which was escapism. He had demons, being a homosexual Jew in an Anglo-Saxon Britain with little intolerance for deviation, let alone what Epstein was. Homosexuals of Epstein's era did not have a good self image. They were told they were evil, or if not that, that at least there was something wrong with them and that they were deviants with a psychological illness. They were harassed, abused and arrested on trumped up charges ("vagrancy" being ever so popular). The results of those emotional issues are what contributed to the drug use.

There is potential for Epstein to lose himself, and thus be an albatross on the band. He could lose himself in increased drug use, and/or taking harder drugs. He could lose himself in an emotional collapse of depression and/or loss of sense and direction. He could lose himself in a mix of both. And an aloof Epstein will not help the Beatles, and could well result in some bad decisions and bad effects. And should he kill himself at some point, which was not outside of his known character to consider, that would have an even more devastating impact on the band than just the accidental death as it was.

One also wonders what if Epstein was outed for his homosexuality at some point after the POD. The West took a very long time to accept homosexuality. It took until the 70s to even start to tolerate it. If Epstein were outed before that period, or even after, it could well cause all the sort of controversy and potential for alienation he always preferred to avoid. Then again, many people did manage to hide their homosexuality for eons; Elton John, Rock Hudson, Liberace, etc. He could also always feign bisexuality (as Elton John did), or enter into a sham marriage. The latter possibility would be a potential contributor to depression.