WI: John Lennon assassination '66

loneranger

loneranger

There's two scenarios for a potential John Lennon assassination in 1966:
1. When the Beatles refused to have breakfast with the First Lady of the Philippines, causing riots over the nation.
2. When Lennon made a comment about the Beatles being bigger than Jesus, which angered many in the Bible Belt, and most importantly: the KKK.

So, what would be the result of an assassination of John Lennon before the Beatles studio years even began? My guess is that he would be immortalized, but what about the rest of the group?
 
Emperor Norton I

Emperor Norton I

Under either scenarios, the other Beatles are also in danger. But, let's say it's just Lennon. For the Bible Belt scenario, it should be noted that (IIRC) there were some murmurs that the KKK was planning on killing them, and the Beatles believed that pot shots were taken at them. Expect a shit storm for any region where this happens.

If Lennon were killed, the Beatles are through, plain and simple. They required Lennon and McCartney to continue, and Lennon more than McCartney as Lennon was the leader (especially during this pre-Pepper time period). Epstein could try to keep them together, but I doubt it would have worked.
Maybe the remaining Beatles would reorganize into something else. Certainly Paul had already come into his own musically. Ringo and George were less developed (Ringo especially). So maybe they could become a new band and continuing making music.
However, there's also the possibility of them splitting up. George Harrison wanted to leave in 1966 of the OTL after the Candlestick Park concert, I believe because of the chaos of the 1966 year. Something like this could push him over that edge and lead to him leaving for his own career or to join another band or just to leave music. Problematically for George if he became a solo artist is that he had evolved by leaps and bounds and was putting out some good material (You can hear this on the pre-Pepper albums in his songs that were recorded), but he was certainly nothing compared to Lennon-McCartney yet, and certainly not as developed as he would be by Abbey Road and the break up (and I'd dare say he was on equal footing with Lennon and McCartney by that point). George even said himself that he was behind musically compared to Lennon and McCartney so he had to write some junk before he got a decent song written, and if he went solo in 1966, I think he'd only be doing decent material.
Ringo is a wild card; I always view him as the child in the divorce in these scenarios, bumping between everyone else until he's ready to be on his own.

For what he was, Lennon wasn't a revolutionary like he would be later yet, but he was kind of proto-revolutionary. He made some statements about Vietnam and so forth. But that stuff wasn't prevalent, or at least like it would be later. It was still sort of smart, biting wit, intellectual John. And he'd be remembered mostly as that incarnation of himself.
Fan reaction would be aghast. It'd be like the world was ending. John Lennon is dead, and the Beatles are over. Tell that to the screaming hordes of every stadium in the 1960s.
 
flippikat

flippikat

randomideaguy said:
There's two scenarios for a potential John Lennon assassination in 1966:
1. When the Beatles refused to have breakfast with the First Lady of the Philippines, causing riots over the nation.
2. When Lennon made a comment about the Beatles being bigger than Jesus, which angered many in the Bible Belt, and most importantly: the KKK.

So, what would be the result of an assassination of John Lennon before the Beatles studio years even began? My guess is that he would be immortalized, but what about the rest of the group?
Click to expand...

This is an interesting POD.

I previously posted a 'what if' based around John falling off the Abbey Road studios roof in the middle of the Sgt Pepper sessions around March 1967.
this was when George Martin took him there for some fresh air during a bad trip. (the two of them actually did go to the roof in OTL, only to be brought back inside by a worried McCartney as soon as he found out!)

The difference of a July/August 1966 death is the Beatles would be between albums. Recording for Revolver was finished, and no new project was on the horizon.

I would guess a lot would depend on George - we know in OTL that in 1968 he had a stockpile of songs that were getting rejected for Beatles albums.. What did he have up his sleeve in 1966?

Would he have enough songs and enough courage to try and strike out on his own, or would he stick with Paul (at least for the time being) while he got his portfolio of late-60s songs together?
 
flippikat

flippikat

Emperor Norton I said:
However, there's also the possibility of them splitting up. George Harrison wanted to leave in 1966 of the OTL after the Candlestick Park concert, I believe because of the chaos of the 1966 year. Something like this could push him over that edge and lead to him leaving for his own career or to join another band or just to leave music. Problematically for George if he became a solo artist is that he had evolved by leaps and bounds and was putting out some good material (You can hear this on the pre-Pepper albums in his songs that were recorded), but he was certainly nothing compared to Lennon-McCartney yet, and certainly not as developed as he would be by Abbey Road and the break up (and I'd dare say he was on equal footing with Lennon and McCartney by that point). George even said himself that he was behind musically compared to Lennon and McCartney so he had to write some junk before he got a decent song written, and if he went solo in 1966, I think he'd only be doing decent material.
Ringo is a wild card; I always view him as the child in the divorce in these scenarios, bumping between everyone else until he's ready to be on his own.

For what he was, Lennon wasn't a revolutionary like he would be later yet, but he was kind of proto-revolutionary. He made some statements about Vietnam and so forth. But that stuff wasn't prevalent, or at least like it would be later. It was still sort of smart, biting wit, intellectual John. And he'd be remembered mostly as that incarnation of himself.
Fan reaction would be aghast. It'd be like the world was ending. John Lennon is dead, and the Beatles are over. Tell that to the screaming hordes of every stadium in the 1960s.
Click to expand...

I can't see 1966 George Harrison leaving the others and leading a band of his own. As you said, his songwriting was still a work in progress, and I can see him sticking with the Paul and Ringo for an album or 2 just to bide his time.

The direction of the band would largely be in the hands of Paul. In 1966 he was well immersed in the arts scene of London (more so than John, who caught-up on the avant garde once Yoko appeared) So I can imagine a similar project to Sgt Pepper emerging, but more sombre in tone.
 
Emperor Norton I

Emperor Norton I

flippikat said:
I can't see 1966 George Harrison leaving the others and leading a band of his own. As you said, his songwriting was still a work in progress, and I can see him sticking with the Paul and Ringo for an album or 2 just to bide his time.
Click to expand...
But George did seriously consider leaving in 1966, songwriting be damned. I think things were just getting to him too much to be with the Beatles (and they couldn't hear him playing over the crowds). While he pulled back from that position once they went into recording strictly in the studio, I think a 1966 which -already hectic- contained the death of his idol and the band's leader could have just pushed him to the breaking point. I'd really call it a 50/50.

The direction of the band would largely be in the hands of Paul. In 1966 he was well immersed in the arts scene of London (more so than John, who caught-up on the avant garde once Yoko appeared) So I can imagine a similar project to Sgt Pepper emerging, but more sombre in tone.
Click to expand...
Sgt. Pepper as a concept was all Paul, so that could have emerged. Basically, Paul would probably do what he did already, but the Beatles/Whatever they'd be renamed (we can call them "Peatles" for short hand; Paul's Beatles) sound would definitely suffer without John. Paul also suffered from doing what Lennon called "granny rockers". Paul often veered into light subject material. While fine, Lennon was always there to weigh that down.
 
flippikat

flippikat

Emperor Norton I said:
But George did seriously consider leaving in 1966, songwriting be damned. I think things were just getting to him too much to be with the Beatles (and they couldn't hear him playing over the crowds). While he pulled back from that position once they went into recording strictly in the studio, I think a 1966 which -already hectic- contained the death of his idol and the band's leader could have just pushed him to the breaking point. I'd really call it a 50/50.

.
Click to expand...

If George Harrison leaves the Beatles, and is spooked by John's death, he might be scared off the mystical interests that he was beginning to explore.

In this scenario, it's quite possible he'd start a band that's against the emerging psychedelic sound - a good old rock'n'roll band, with a little blues and a little country thrown in. The ideal first recruit would be a top-notch guitarist, to cover some of Harrison's shortcomings and deflect a little of the spotlight.

One such guitarist comes straight to mind - Eric Clapton.

Eric was outgrowing the Bluesbreakers, would he still join Jack Bruce and Ginger Baker in Cream if he had the option of joining George Harrison in a new band? (especially if he knew that Ginger & Jack already had some bad blood between them...)

Basically I'm basing this off Bob Dylan's reaction to a similar traumatic experience-his motorcycle accident. When Bob returned, it was a totally different Bob, and definately 'back to basics'. I'm suggesting that if George Harrison continued in music, he'd revert to basics too.
 
loneranger

loneranger

The above post gave me a thought: would the Beatles possible re-form with, say, Eric Clapton as lead guitarist? Then Harrison would switch to rhythm, and a Harrison-McCartney might develop (with Harrison as a minor partner at first, but once he started evolving). What would that kind of partnership look like?

The reason I bring it up is, like you said, Ringo would be bouncing between Beatles, so he might play and/or being in the Harrison/Clapton band, and at that point it looks like they simply dumped Paul.
 

Blackadder mk 2

Well if the KKK assassinate Lennon then I'd imagine the backlash from many teenagers against them would quadruple at best (for the Klan).

It'd be like if the Tea Party killed Justin Bieber.
 
flippikat

flippikat

It would be interesting if Ringo jumped ship too, and joined a Harrison/Clapton band (let's refer to it as HCB in short).

I honestly don't think that Ringo would jump ship to the HCB. At least not right away.

Sure, if tensions between McCartney & Lennon surface earlier that might encourage him, especially if the HCB is doing well in 1967.

it would be interesting to see what the Beatles do after the Sgt Pepper album (or whatever McCartney develops instead of it.).

If that album was basically like Sgt Pepper stripped of the Indian influence - with a fair number of McCartney toe-tappers, would there be a trade-off with the next album being more stripped-back and raw at the insistance of Lennon?

An aside: I heard that one of Brian Epstein's favourite albums in 1967 was the Velvet Underground's debut album. What if Lennon really used it as inspiration and the next album after Sgt Pepper either sounded like that album or it's more violent fuzz-and-feedback drenched follow-up? ("thought we'd gone strange, huh?? Well TRY THIS!")

[NOTE: this was supposed to be in the 'Harrison Quits' thread.. As pointed out below, John can't create an album if he's dead. ah well, the dangers of following 2 similar discussions at the same time, huh?? :]
 
Last edited:

Glass Onion

I think that the Beatles would stick together for another album, but after that things become questionable. Harrison did not like working with Paul McCartney. After Lennon dies, for all intents and purposes The Beatles become Wings, meaning it's essentially Paul McCartney with a backup band. Hope I'm not insulting any Wings fans when I say that. Anyway, I can't see McCartney allowing Harrison to have the status within the group that Lennon had. Harrison will have a few more songs, but he probably won't be considered McCartney's songwriting equal. That means Harrison's departure from the group in 1968 is probable, and by 1969 all but inevitable, presuming that he doesn't leave in 1966. Pepper will be hurt considerably. Yes, it was Paul's project. But some of the albums most important work was Lennon's or at least partially Lennon's. This is a Pepper without Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds, without A Day in the Life, and depending on who you're talking to, With a Little Help from My friends (Lyrically anyway.) So Pepper might be a weaker album.
 
loneranger

loneranger

If everyone is in agreement, then we can assume Sgt. Pepper will go forward ITTL as well. I've read that Paul was the Beatle who most wanted to continue touring, so the new Beatles may try and tour for it, but I think Harrison will quit after the album is made.

Anyways, here's what I think the alt-Sgt. Pepper would look like:

1. Sgt. Pepper...
2. A Little Help from my Friends (with that one line altered)
3. Fixing a Hole
4. Within You Without You
5. When I'm Sixty-Four
6. Lovely Rita
7. A Day In the Life (Altered significantly)

And probably some other material that they didn't use IOTL, ranging from some Harrison written songs to Lennon/McCartney songs that didn't make a previous record.
 

Glass Onion

A Day in the Life won't exist at all. You might get a McCartney song based on the "Woke up Got out of Bed" bit, but it's just as likely that little half song is thrown out entirely.
 
loneranger

loneranger

Glass Onion said:
A Day in the Life won't exist at all. You might get a McCartney song based on the "Woke up Got out of Bed" bit, but it's just as likely that little half song is thrown out entirely.
Click to expand...
What songs do you think would be used to fill out the album? I am currently reading up on who wrote what and when on the Genocide, but it's tedious.
 

Glass Onion

Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
With a Little Help From My Friends*
Fixing a Hole
Only a Northern Song
Getting Better
She's Leaving Home
Penny Lane
Within You Without You
When I'm 64
Lovely Rita
Sgt. Pepper Reprise.

*This is tenuous while the music was McCartney's, who wrote the lyrics is disputed, some sources say that Lennon wrote a line, others that he wrote the whole thing.

Of course butterflies could lead to an entirely different album.
 
loneranger

loneranger

I've been mulling over your comments, and I've got a sort of general concept together in my head. Alright, so Paul convinces the other two Beatles to work on this Sgt. Pepper's project, which they probably dedicate to Lennon (maybe some of the extra space could be filled in by them updating some Lennon demos, if there is any, or using songs that he wrote but hadn't recorded at the time of his death). George quits after the album is made, he's tired of touring, and I'm sure he's spooked by Lennon's assassination. I could see him staying out of the lime light for a few years. Ringo could go either way, sticking with McCartney, or quitting to spend time with his family, similarly spooked by the assassination.

Now, it's been said by a few here that George and Ringo could be replaced pretty much any time in the Beatles career. But, honestly, with Lennon recently dead I could see some backlash with McCartney turning the band into his solo project. So, I think it's feasible that the Beatles would stop. I could see McCartney playing some Sgt. Pepper material on his solo career, but all in all it would be seen as the final hurrah of the Beatles.

Like you said, it's pretty improbable for McCartney and Harrison to collaborate on songwriting this earlier. But, by the time 1969 rolled around IOTL McCartney did admit that Harrison's writing was on par with the Lennon/McCartney partnership. So, let's stipulate that McCartney goes on a solo career, but it's just not the same. I could see his popularity starting out big but after a year or so, when Lennon's death and the hype of the Beatles has faded a bit, his popularity would probably be pretty low.

With Lennon's death, we could probably even push back the date at which Harrison's writing becomes good enough for Paul. Say, 1971 or so, a Beatles re-union is orchestrated. A Harrison-McCartney writing partnership could possibly blossom, and this could also cement the Power Trio as the generic rock band set up instead of the four piece that was common IOTL. Thoughts?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top