WI: The Beatles Stay Together?
- Thread starter Emperor Norton I
- Start date
- Status
I know I'm probably stating the obvious, but in order for this to work either John Lennon and Yoko Ono have to stay in Britain or you have to avoid the drug conviction. Otherwise a Beatles staying together scenario becomes very difficult. Especially the second scenario Norton suggested. (Brief break up comparable to the Rolling Stones brief split in the Eighties.) By 1971, due to a lot of issues, including Yoko Ono's daughter John Lennon is probably going to go to the US, even if he's on friendlier terms with the other members of the band. If he goes there, and has his drug conviction there can't be a reunion, because Lennon will not leave the United States for fear of not being let back in. Under those circumstances a quick Beatles reunion is almost impossible, unless you get them to record in the US, which would be problematic for everyone except John Lennon.
By 1969 the group was ready for a hiatus at least. Unless you change things going back probably to 1967, some hiatus was coming in that time period. John Lennon was already releasing songs under the "Plastic Ono Band" banner before the official split, Harrison had his huge library of unreleased songs that would have taken numerous Beatles albums to release. A break up between 1969-1970 simply makes sense. But a relatively quick reunion is certainly possible. Though it may require multiple POD's. Since I know more about what Lennon was doing after the split my ideas are very Lennon heavy.
Let's say Lennon somehow avoids his 1969 conviction. Not sure how to do this exactly.
Let's say Harrison allows Yoko Ono to appear with John Lennon during the "Concert for Bangladesh" and as a result, the two stay on relatively good terms.
Now I don't see a reunion coming in 1971, a reunion probably isn't coming in the year of "How Do You Sleep?" But flash forward to two years later, a reunion becomes increasingly possible. By 1973 there was practically a reunion on the Ringo album. Harrison actually proposed forming a group again with Lennon, who kind of balked at the proposal. But with butterflies from not having the deportation thing looming over his head, he may be more willing to continue working with Harrison and from their you may see a collaboration with Paul McCartney.
It'd probably start as a one time thing though. That is the Beatles work on the Ringo album may spiral into a full "reunion album" The two main impediments to this may be Harrison's resentment towards McCartney. Paul McCartney will be on thin ice where that's concerned. And of course Wings would present something of a problem. If it can be surmounted you might see an album sometime in 1973 that's something of a hybrid between Mind Games, Living in a Material World, Red Rose Speedway, and Ringo. Of course then Lennon's probably still headed towards his Lost weekend stage. Plus there's the Rock and Roll album issue for Lennon. So the follow up album will take a while to release.
The next Beatles album really depends on how patient McCartney is, the second post 1970 Beatles album will be released in 1974. Though there will obviously be some songwriting differences due to butterflies, the resulting album might somewhat resemble a combination of Band on the Run Walls and Bridges and Dark Horse time wise. After that it's anybody's guess. Lennon could go house husband as per OTL, which means the Beatles are on another hiatus. Indeed a longer one then there initial 1970-1973 hiatus, lasting five years.
I'm tired so this is really really convergent. But just think of how good a Band on the Run Mixed with Walls and Bridges album would be if it's done properly. It'd more than live up to there reputation.
So there you have it, the Beatles reunite in 1973. The Beatles situation would be roughly comparable to what happened to the Rolling Stones in the 1980s. Remember they too had a three year hiatus between 1986 and 1989 during which tension between the bands creative forces was relatively high.
I know my idea probably better suits a "Beatles Reunite" thread than a "they never split in the first place" thread, but honestly the group needed time off by 1969. And it sort of fits the brief split idea Norton expressed int the original post.
By 1969 the group was ready for a hiatus at least. Unless you change things going back probably to 1967, some hiatus was coming in that time period. John Lennon was already releasing songs under the "Plastic Ono Band" banner before the official split, Harrison had his huge library of unreleased songs that would have taken numerous Beatles albums to release. A break up between 1969-1970 simply makes sense. But a relatively quick reunion is certainly possible. Though it may require multiple POD's. Since I know more about what Lennon was doing after the split my ideas are very Lennon heavy.
Let's say Lennon somehow avoids his 1969 conviction. Not sure how to do this exactly.
Let's say Harrison allows Yoko Ono to appear with John Lennon during the "Concert for Bangladesh" and as a result, the two stay on relatively good terms.
Now I don't see a reunion coming in 1971, a reunion probably isn't coming in the year of "How Do You Sleep?" But flash forward to two years later, a reunion becomes increasingly possible. By 1973 there was practically a reunion on the Ringo album. Harrison actually proposed forming a group again with Lennon, who kind of balked at the proposal. But with butterflies from not having the deportation thing looming over his head, he may be more willing to continue working with Harrison and from their you may see a collaboration with Paul McCartney.
It'd probably start as a one time thing though. That is the Beatles work on the Ringo album may spiral into a full "reunion album" The two main impediments to this may be Harrison's resentment towards McCartney. Paul McCartney will be on thin ice where that's concerned. And of course Wings would present something of a problem. If it can be surmounted you might see an album sometime in 1973 that's something of a hybrid between Mind Games, Living in a Material World, Red Rose Speedway, and Ringo. Of course then Lennon's probably still headed towards his Lost weekend stage. Plus there's the Rock and Roll album issue for Lennon. So the follow up album will take a while to release.
The next Beatles album really depends on how patient McCartney is, the second post 1970 Beatles album will be released in 1974. Though there will obviously be some songwriting differences due to butterflies, the resulting album might somewhat resemble a combination of Band on the Run Walls and Bridges and Dark Horse time wise. After that it's anybody's guess. Lennon could go house husband as per OTL, which means the Beatles are on another hiatus. Indeed a longer one then there initial 1970-1973 hiatus, lasting five years.
I'm tired so this is really really convergent. But just think of how good a Band on the Run Mixed with Walls and Bridges album would be if it's done properly. It'd more than live up to there reputation.
So there you have it, the Beatles reunite in 1973. The Beatles situation would be roughly comparable to what happened to the Rolling Stones in the 1980s. Remember they too had a three year hiatus between 1986 and 1989 during which tension between the bands creative forces was relatively high.
I know my idea probably better suits a "Beatles Reunite" thread than a "they never split in the first place" thread, but honestly the group needed time off by 1969. And it sort of fits the brief split idea Norton expressed int the original post.
I might get shot down for this, but would The Beatles end up producing cinematic-type Music Videos when they got to the 80s? They were already doing musical films and promotional clips, so it might be something to consider, I guess.
Last edited:
Could they release solo Albums while still doing group work? That could be a good way to stop them from getting on each others nerves.
It depends on if Michael Jackson comes along or not. Before him, music videos were simple like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddnRtFd7Hps
Not out of the question, but I think it would distract their energies. I did have an idea where The Beatles, following "Let It Be" or in lieu of it pulled a "KISS", and each member released a solo album under the official band name (If you're not with those 1978 albums familiar, I'd Google it for a better explanation).
Yeah, but when the music video format became popular, I'd like to think that they would invest time in it, possibly even influence it a bit.
As it turns out for good reasons. Like it or not outside of Paul none of the Beetles did very well after the breakup. He probably has had more hit tunes after the break up than the other three combined.
The others did rather well outside of the group. Paul was just the more successful of all of them on his own, albeit that success peaked in the 80's. And that success was because his songs were more pop oriented.
Or do you mean as people? (Lennon certainly went through chaos with deportation attempts by the Nixon administration, trying to find Kyoko Ono, fighting off attacks on his wife, a heroine addiction; Ringo was unable to cope outside of the band for some time, and sank into alcoholism; George...did fine as far as I can recall)
Fine, yes but he did considerably better. They had a few hits here and there he had quite a few for a time.
If you want an indicator of how the Beatles may have sounded as a group in time, outside of their solo albums of course, ELO may be a good indicator. Examples below.
10538 Overture
Horace Wimp
Yours Truly, 2095 ("Time" is my favorite ELO album, btw)
21st Century Man (This is said to be about John Lennon)
Mr. Blue Sky
10538 Overture
Horace Wimp
Yours Truly, 2095 ("Time" is my favorite ELO album, btw)
21st Century Man (This is said to be about John Lennon)
Mr. Blue Sky
Yes. Albeit Lennon was more famous.
Last edited:
WestVirginiaRebel
Banned
I think that if they stay together it would only be for maybe 5 or so years more. Even in their solo careers they all seemed to burn out by 1975 so I think that would be a good time for a mor amicable breakup that could lead to a reunion sometime in the mid-80s. I think the material would still have been top notch, think of "Imagine", "Jealous Guy" and "Maybe I'm Amazed" with full Beatle participation. And as has been said they were always more than the sum of their parts when working together so they definitely could have kept up with emerging bands in the early 70s.
In terms of their sound in the seventies, I think there were certain patterns in their solo work that can guide our judgment. With a few exceptions, the former Beatles tended to really overproduce their work in the seventies which was in keeping with the then current trend. That was the case with John Lennon after Plastic Ono Band (Which had a low key production, ironic considering it was produced by Phil "Wall of Sound" Specter. It was the case with Paul once Wings got started, though arguably it was the case with RAM as well. It applied to Harrison from the beginning of his solo career. So presumably, it would apply to any Beatles albums released after 1970.
To my knowledge of their seventies solo output, all four members of the Beatles continue to follow their musical patterns generally established during the late Beatles period. That is, you still had them using traditional instruments to make their music to a point, but you also had them making use of orchestral music etc. That probably means that would continue. Harrison had already begun his use of the slide guitar that defined his work by Abbey Road, so that almost certainly appears on the Beatles albums that follow it, with the exception of Let it Be obviously.
As to what the Beatles will focus on in their seventies output it's difficult to say. Explicitly religious songs will presumably be vetoed by the group, so a lot of Harrison's solo output goes out the window. Lennon will probably continue his tendency towards self reflection, but whether we see songs angrily talking about his childhood depends on whether he has the same sort of breakdown in 1970, sees Janov etc. Even without primal therapy, Lennon will continue to write about Yoko Ono for the foreseeable future, and probably some antiwar protest songs as well.
To my knowledge of their seventies solo output, all four members of the Beatles continue to follow their musical patterns generally established during the late Beatles period. That is, you still had them using traditional instruments to make their music to a point, but you also had them making use of orchestral music etc. That probably means that would continue. Harrison had already begun his use of the slide guitar that defined his work by Abbey Road, so that almost certainly appears on the Beatles albums that follow it, with the exception of Let it Be obviously.
As to what the Beatles will focus on in their seventies output it's difficult to say. Explicitly religious songs will presumably be vetoed by the group, so a lot of Harrison's solo output goes out the window. Lennon will probably continue his tendency towards self reflection, but whether we see songs angrily talking about his childhood depends on whether he has the same sort of breakdown in 1970, sees Janov etc. Even without primal therapy, Lennon will continue to write about Yoko Ono for the foreseeable future, and probably some antiwar protest songs as well.
There are some other bands that would be easier to keep together or re-unite than The Beatles.. It's damn hard to find a reason why they'd all want to get together at the same time.
I've thought of doing a WI Lou Reed sees the error of booting John Cale out of the Velvet Underground, and brings him back in to contribute to the "Loaded" album... And then some more!
Also, would there be any way of getting CSN together earlier? If you put together the stuff they were writing for their respective bands in '67, there's the makings of a damn fine album....
I've thought of doing a WI Lou Reed sees the error of booting John Cale out of the Velvet Underground, and brings him back in to contribute to the "Loaded" album... And then some more!
Also, would there be any way of getting CSN together earlier? If you put together the stuff they were writing for their respective bands in '67, there's the makings of a damn fine album....
Radio Program the post-Let It Be AH album:
http://wamu.org/programs/the_beatles_one_more_album/index.php
http://wamu.org/programs/the_beatles_one_more_album/index.php
Sorry about the bump and yes I know it's a rather large one, but I've been thinking about this topic for a few weeks now. And it's probably better to respond to this thread than to start a new one of my own
I don't know if keeping the Beatles together perpetually is a real possibility without a point of divergence in 1966 or 1967. Keeping them together, at least officially, through 1971, is at least slightly possible. As Harrison himself said, things could have continued as they were for a bit longer than they did historically.
Now the first change we have to make is to keep Lennon invested in the group for a bit longer than he did. Lennon claimed he didn't fully decide to leave the group until he went off to do that concert with Clapton in September 1969. So the first thing that needs to happen to keep the Beatles from breaking up when they did historically is to prevent Lennon from making that decision when he did. Once Lennon leaves, there's no hope for the band. McCartney and Harrison simply didn't get along well enough for there to be a successful trio rump post Lennon Beatles.
Apparently, Lennon offered the group Cold Turkey as a single. That may be the last point at which he was still interested in the group, since he decided to leave shortly after the song was rejected.
So first things first, although it doesn't really sound like a Beatles song, let's have McCartney accept the song. It's released on a Double A-side single along with Harrison's "Something". With a new Beatles single out, Lennon decides against up and leaving the group in September 1969, although he's probably inclined to leave anyway but the situation is more up in the air.
Now, the three remaining members of the group did work on I Me Mine in 1970, and here Lennon may be present for that.
Since Cold Turkey was a Beatles single, negating songwriting butterflies, there's a possibility Instant Karma is too. For convenience, let's say its tied next to "Come Together." From the previous years "Abbey Road"
And here we reach the second problem with keeping the Beatles together through the year. If Instant Karma still is released, and the murderer still produces it, then he's going to be given the Get Back sessions to work with and he's going to produce something pretty much like what he produced historically. And here we run into the Paul McCartney problem. If the Long and Winding Road is produced as it was, he bolts, no matter what Lennon's thoughts on group cohesion are in alt-1970. This is a bit unlikely, but let's say instead of doing what he did historically to deal with the bad bass issue, McCartney does an overdub. Again, not terribly likely, but possible. There's apparently precedent for that elsewhere on the album.
John Lennon's emotions aren't going to be any better here then they were historically, so there's a chance he goes to Janov anyway.
Not sure how that works out. Harrison did work with Starkey then, as did Lennon latter on. But the situation between Paul and George isn't going to be great even if things are as slightly improved as I've made them through considerable hand waving. So the songs that historically came from All Things Must Pass and McCartney are recorded then. If a desperate and overwhelmed McCartney doesn't record his songs in late 1969 anyway.
When Lennon returns, and records all the songs his anguish has created, the group puts together an album.
It's a kind of combination of McCartney All Things Must Pass and Plastic Ono Band. And it's released in December 1970. Probably with a couple of accompanying singles released shortly before and shortly after the album itself. No telling what would be cut, what would appear etc. Though "God" is probably out for obvious reasons.
Then we get to 1971. The Beatles against all odds, survived the sixties, but barely. It's any guess what happens now. If the band is really lucky, they might pull off another album. That's going to be the last Beatles album for awhile for one simple reason. Because of family circumstance, and their own inclination. Even if the Beatles are still a group in 1971, they are going to be inclined to leave Britain for NYC when they did historically. Due to the immigration issue Lennon can't travel between the US and Britain, and he can't leave the US because of the issues surrounding Yoko Ono's daughter. Since there would still be issues in the group that haven't subsided since 1969, the band breaks up in 1972. They might get back together, but again, they probably won't judging by what actually happened.
Is the situation I described plausible? Well no, of course not, there more improbabilities and holes than I can count. The Beatles were hurtling towards a split probably by January 1969. The split was probably inevitable by the time Abbey Road was released. Also, I'm using a lot of handwavium where the songs are concerned, but that's mostly for conveniences sake. I don't know what they actually would have recorded if they were still a band in 1970. But this is the best I can do without resorting to the old "Brian Epstein doesn't die" routine. And even then, I can't keep them completely together perpetually.
I don't know if keeping the Beatles together perpetually is a real possibility without a point of divergence in 1966 or 1967. Keeping them together, at least officially, through 1971, is at least slightly possible. As Harrison himself said, things could have continued as they were for a bit longer than they did historically.
Now the first change we have to make is to keep Lennon invested in the group for a bit longer than he did. Lennon claimed he didn't fully decide to leave the group until he went off to do that concert with Clapton in September 1969. So the first thing that needs to happen to keep the Beatles from breaking up when they did historically is to prevent Lennon from making that decision when he did. Once Lennon leaves, there's no hope for the band. McCartney and Harrison simply didn't get along well enough for there to be a successful trio rump post Lennon Beatles.
Apparently, Lennon offered the group Cold Turkey as a single. That may be the last point at which he was still interested in the group, since he decided to leave shortly after the song was rejected.
So first things first, although it doesn't really sound like a Beatles song, let's have McCartney accept the song. It's released on a Double A-side single along with Harrison's "Something". With a new Beatles single out, Lennon decides against up and leaving the group in September 1969, although he's probably inclined to leave anyway but the situation is more up in the air.
Now, the three remaining members of the group did work on I Me Mine in 1970, and here Lennon may be present for that.
Since Cold Turkey was a Beatles single, negating songwriting butterflies, there's a possibility Instant Karma is too. For convenience, let's say its tied next to "Come Together." From the previous years "Abbey Road"
And here we reach the second problem with keeping the Beatles together through the year. If Instant Karma still is released, and the murderer still produces it, then he's going to be given the Get Back sessions to work with and he's going to produce something pretty much like what he produced historically. And here we run into the Paul McCartney problem. If the Long and Winding Road is produced as it was, he bolts, no matter what Lennon's thoughts on group cohesion are in alt-1970. This is a bit unlikely, but let's say instead of doing what he did historically to deal with the bad bass issue, McCartney does an overdub. Again, not terribly likely, but possible. There's apparently precedent for that elsewhere on the album.
John Lennon's emotions aren't going to be any better here then they were historically, so there's a chance he goes to Janov anyway.
Not sure how that works out. Harrison did work with Starkey then, as did Lennon latter on. But the situation between Paul and George isn't going to be great even if things are as slightly improved as I've made them through considerable hand waving. So the songs that historically came from All Things Must Pass and McCartney are recorded then. If a desperate and overwhelmed McCartney doesn't record his songs in late 1969 anyway.
When Lennon returns, and records all the songs his anguish has created, the group puts together an album.
It's a kind of combination of McCartney All Things Must Pass and Plastic Ono Band. And it's released in December 1970. Probably with a couple of accompanying singles released shortly before and shortly after the album itself. No telling what would be cut, what would appear etc. Though "God" is probably out for obvious reasons.
Then we get to 1971. The Beatles against all odds, survived the sixties, but barely. It's any guess what happens now. If the band is really lucky, they might pull off another album. That's going to be the last Beatles album for awhile for one simple reason. Because of family circumstance, and their own inclination. Even if the Beatles are still a group in 1971, they are going to be inclined to leave Britain for NYC when they did historically. Due to the immigration issue Lennon can't travel between the US and Britain, and he can't leave the US because of the issues surrounding Yoko Ono's daughter. Since there would still be issues in the group that haven't subsided since 1969, the band breaks up in 1972. They might get back together, but again, they probably won't judging by what actually happened.
Is the situation I described plausible? Well no, of course not, there more improbabilities and holes than I can count. The Beatles were hurtling towards a split probably by January 1969. The split was probably inevitable by the time Abbey Road was released. Also, I'm using a lot of handwavium where the songs are concerned, but that's mostly for conveniences sake. I don't know what they actually would have recorded if they were still a band in 1970. But this is the best I can do without resorting to the old "Brian Epstein doesn't die" routine. And even then, I can't keep them completely together perpetually.
I was thinking about this earlier, and a thought crossed my mind:
How likely would it be to keep Paul and John together post-1970? Ringo and George not included.
This next part is probably wishful thinking, but: WI Eric Clapton and Mitch Mitchell were used to fill out the line-up, post-1970?
How likely would it be to keep Paul and John together post-1970? Ringo and George not included.
This next part is probably wishful thinking, but: WI Eric Clapton and Mitch Mitchell were used to fill out the line-up, post-1970?
This has already been said, but there was no way to keep the Beatles together. By 1970, tensions in the band were too high and they all resented each other too much to be able to keep working together. I also think 1971 was far too early for them to have reunited; not enough time had passed.
What I do find intriguing is the possibility of their being reunited by Lorne Michaels in 1976. Michaels did a bit on Saturday Night Live that year wherein he said he would give the Beatles three thousand dollars to reunite on the show. This was obviously somewhat tongue-in-cheek (three thousand dollars would be chump change to any one of the Beatles, and the offer as made said the sum was to divide up between them), but it later became known that John and Paul happened to be watching the show together in New York that night. They briefly toyed with the idea of going down to the studio right then, but in the end decided not to.
I wonder what would have happened if they had thought about it some more and then decided to call up George and Ringo and go on the show as a group. By then six years had passed since the band split, and I wonder if the tensions could have passed enough by that point that they could have actually enjoyed working together again. Maybe they could have started discussing collaborating on a new Beatles album, which could potentially lead to a full reunion and more albums.
They definitely would have made music videos once MTV came along. They were pioneers in music videos. Just watch the promotional video for "Penny Lane", say, or "I Am the Walrus", and then try to tell me those aren't full-fledged music videos in the pre-MTV era. I think if they had been making new music together in the 1980s, they would have been doing videos, and whatever they did would end up becoming influential among other artists of the day, simply because they were the Beatles.
What I do find intriguing is the possibility of their being reunited by Lorne Michaels in 1976. Michaels did a bit on Saturday Night Live that year wherein he said he would give the Beatles three thousand dollars to reunite on the show. This was obviously somewhat tongue-in-cheek (three thousand dollars would be chump change to any one of the Beatles, and the offer as made said the sum was to divide up between them), but it later became known that John and Paul happened to be watching the show together in New York that night. They briefly toyed with the idea of going down to the studio right then, but in the end decided not to.
I wonder what would have happened if they had thought about it some more and then decided to call up George and Ringo and go on the show as a group. By then six years had passed since the band split, and I wonder if the tensions could have passed enough by that point that they could have actually enjoyed working together again. Maybe they could have started discussing collaborating on a new Beatles album, which could potentially lead to a full reunion and more albums.
They definitely would have made music videos once MTV came along. They were pioneers in music videos. Just watch the promotional video for "Penny Lane", say, or "I Am the Walrus", and then try to tell me those aren't full-fledged music videos in the pre-MTV era. I think if they had been making new music together in the 1980s, they would have been doing videos, and whatever they did would end up becoming influential among other artists of the day, simply because they were the Beatles.
If there were no Linda Eastman then the Beatles would have continued on with Allen Klein as manager. Linda was actually the Yoko people think Yoko is, though not by being a bad person (quite the opposite).
Linda had Paul's best interests in mind, but unfortunately, the rest of the Beatles knew that her father and brother would as well and wouldn't budge on choosing Klein as manager over Paul's in-laws, Eastman and Eastman. When Paul got pouty he did one of the slimiest things he had ever done in his musical career next to the way he chose to "release" Pete Best...
Keep the band together so he could break it up.
McCartney's biggest reason for keeping the group together after John suggested quitting was to fire the first shot with his own solo album and making it look like the Beatles' breakup was his idea. It was a brilliant career move but it was perceived as a dick thing to do - by Lennon mostly, and the rest of the group in kind.
And that is because it really WAS a dick move.
So, no Linda means Allen Klein keeps the band together until he does something underhanded (if he does) and by around 1975, the Beatles retire - perhaps forever perhaps not.
John and Yoko may get divorced if there's no Lost Weekend. Their co-dependency had Yoko sick of John and John unsure of himself as an adult man. After getting his wild hairs pulled in '74 he came back to Yoko and they had Sean. No lost weekend means Yoko stays tired of his dependency and, anyway, he would probably descend into a relapse of drug and alcohol abuse during this time even without Nilsson, Moon, Bowie, and Starr in L.A.
JohnandYoko are toast by 1975, even if Sean (or an analog) is conceived.
Take that as you will, those are the facts.
RANT ALERT:
Don't you ever refer to Phil Spector as a "murderer" again. The man was perhaps the most innovative producer and part time performer/composer of his time and he pretty much changed the course of musical history. No Spector pretty much means no Beatles (or a Beatles who can't write or experiment in the studio, or at least as well... so an Elvis Beatles), no Ramones, no Pet Sounds, no symphonic hybrids of pop, R&B, and rock 'n' roll.
Was he a damnfool lunatic with a gun fetish? Yes. Does he deserve to be in prison for what he did? Probably. Did he actively mean to kill that girl? Absolutely not and anybody who knew him would tell you the same thing. He was irresponsible and awful to be around but it was an accident and he's a pop music genius first, and a fool with a gun fetish second. Not a murderer.
Linda had Paul's best interests in mind, but unfortunately, the rest of the Beatles knew that her father and brother would as well and wouldn't budge on choosing Klein as manager over Paul's in-laws, Eastman and Eastman. When Paul got pouty he did one of the slimiest things he had ever done in his musical career next to the way he chose to "release" Pete Best...
Keep the band together so he could break it up.
McCartney's biggest reason for keeping the group together after John suggested quitting was to fire the first shot with his own solo album and making it look like the Beatles' breakup was his idea. It was a brilliant career move but it was perceived as a dick thing to do - by Lennon mostly, and the rest of the group in kind.
And that is because it really WAS a dick move.
So, no Linda means Allen Klein keeps the band together until he does something underhanded (if he does) and by around 1975, the Beatles retire - perhaps forever perhaps not.
John and Yoko may get divorced if there's no Lost Weekend. Their co-dependency had Yoko sick of John and John unsure of himself as an adult man. After getting his wild hairs pulled in '74 he came back to Yoko and they had Sean. No lost weekend means Yoko stays tired of his dependency and, anyway, he would probably descend into a relapse of drug and alcohol abuse during this time even without Nilsson, Moon, Bowie, and Starr in L.A.
JohnandYoko are toast by 1975, even if Sean (or an analog) is conceived.
Take that as you will, those are the facts.
RANT ALERT:
Don't you ever refer to Phil Spector as a "murderer" again. The man was perhaps the most innovative producer and part time performer/composer of his time and he pretty much changed the course of musical history. No Spector pretty much means no Beatles (or a Beatles who can't write or experiment in the studio, or at least as well... so an Elvis Beatles), no Ramones, no Pet Sounds, no symphonic hybrids of pop, R&B, and rock 'n' roll.
Was he a damnfool lunatic with a gun fetish? Yes. Does he deserve to be in prison for what he did? Probably. Did he actively mean to kill that girl? Absolutely not and anybody who knew him would tell you the same thing. He was irresponsible and awful to be around but it was an accident and he's a pop music genius first, and a fool with a gun fetish second. Not a murderer.
- Status