WI: The Beatles Stay Together?

[Glass Onion]

In terms of a reunion concert, according to one biography of John Lennon, something like that came very very very close to happening in 1979. But then the promoters became greedy, and demanded way too much for Lennon to accept.

Let's say that either the promoter does a better job or Lennon is slightly more willing to perform.

The concert happens-then what?

Most probably they split again, and the performance is just a slight alteration of musical history, aside from the possible butterflies preventing Lennon's murder.

But theoretically in so far as reunions are concerned, 1979 might not be a bad time. Lennon came out of retirement a year later historically. McCartney recorded "McCartney II" which means that Wings is coming to an end, so that isn't as much of an issue as it would be in 1976. Lennon wasn't as hostile to the group as he had been at that point. If Lennon and McCartney do anything, it'll be treated as a Beatles reunion, regardless of what George Harrison or Richard Starkey do.

No idea what a Beatles 1979 album would sound like or what Lennon would contribute.

 

[loneranger]

Would the Beatles showing up at Woodstock affect their break up at all? Besides the butterflies that would include the shut down of the entire New York area as a result.

 

[The Admiral Hook]

Would the Beatles showing up at Woodstock affect their break up at all? Besides the butterflies that would include the shut down of the entire New York area as a result.

You know, I never thought of this, but Woodstock would probably pull the Beatles closer together if Lennon doesn't get all itchy for the POB to play as well.

The plans for their farewell concert were grandiose and eventually spiraled downward until going up on the roof was their only plan of action. The Beatles headlining Woodstock would probably make the festival less "hippie" oriented by comparison and far larger, possibly inspiring the band to go on a farewell tour. Touring was a little easier in 1969 than it was three years earlier, although not much.

This would be cool to explore.

 

[Glass Onion]

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.

I apologize as far as Spector is concerned. I did not mean to offend you there. Indeed, I think his work on Lennon's first solo album is really to his credit. Again I didn't mean to offend you or to insinuate that he wasn't an incredibly talented producer. That was far from my intent. I respect your musical knowledge, and I'll refrain from referring to him by those terms in the future.

As far as the Linda thing is concerned, I think it's probably as good idea as any. The real problem as I see things is keeping Lennon from deciding to quit in 1969, as far as I can tell that was the real moment of no return for the group. That's why I picked "Cold Turkey" as the last possible moment the group could have remained farther than it did. That's the last time John Lennon was interested in releasing a new Beatles single

Even without Linda Eastman, John Lennon probably won't officially announce his departure then if he makes that decision. The way I remember reading things, Allen Klein too insisted that Lennon keep his mouth shut until Abbey Road had run its course. Of course I could be wrong there. Of course removing Linda does remove the managerial issue as you note, and that might make McCartney has a better relationship with the other three which could conceivably lead to a delayed breakup.

If Lennon is still married to Yoko, I think, like I've said, he might go to the US eventually because of Yoko's daughter and all that. And that might kill The Beatles just because of logistics if Lennon decides he doesn't want to go back, never to return. Of course, with enough butterflies conceivably the conviction could be avoided which would make things there easier.

Inevitably, with a point of divergence in 1969 it's hard to say what happens to Yoko Ono and her relationship with Lennon. But you're certainly right about the Lost Weekend. And the dependent/Frustrated nature of the Lennon/Ono marriage by 1973.

 

[The Admiral Hook]

I apologize as far as Spector is concerned. I did not mean to offend you there. Indeed, I think his work on Lennon's first solo album is really to his credit. Again I didn't mean to offend you or to insinuate that he wasn't an incredibly talented producer. That was far from my intent. I respect your musical knowledge, and I'll refrain from referring to him by those terms in the future.

As far as the Linda thing is concerned, I think it's probably as good idea as any. The real problem as I see things is keeping Lennon from deciding to quit in 1969, as far as I can tell that was the real moment of no return for the group. And even without Linda, John Lennon probably won't officially announce his departure then if he makes that decision. The way I remember reading things, Allen Klein too insisted that Lennon keep his mouth shut until Abbey Road had run its course. Of course I could be wrong there. Of course removing Linda does remove the managerial issue as you note, and that might make McCartney has a better relationship with the other three which could conceivably lead to a delayed breakup. If Lennon is still married to Yoko, I think, like I've said, he might go to the US eventually because of Yoko's daughter and all that. And that might kill The Beatles just because of logistics if Lennon decides he doesn't want to go back, never to return. Of course, with enough butterflies conceivably the conviction could be avoided which would make things there easier.

Inevitably, with a point of divergence in 1969 it's hard to say what happens to Yoko Ono and her relationship with Lennon. But you're certainly right about the Lost Weekend. And the dependent/Frustrated nature of the Lennon/Ono marriage by 1973.

Didn't mean to fly off the handle on that, sorry. I've just had enough of that since the trial. He will ever be known as the murderer with the crazy hair and no one will remember "Baby I Love You". Makes me well up...

All is forgiven.

As to the rest, the POD would be in 1967 if we're keeping Linda away from Paul so butterflies can stabilize and lead to a gradual slowdown. Having Lennon stay in England and the Beatles playing Woodstock are good "no Linda McCartney" additions that keep the Beatles together and vital until the mid seventies.

I'm pretty sure that JohnandYoko are finished if there's no Lost Weekend. At least, the research seems to verify it and they themselves also said the same thing.

 

[Glass Onion]

Didn't mean to fly off the handle on that, sorry. I've just had enough of that since the trial. He will ever be known as the murderer with the crazy hair and no one will remember "Baby I Love You". Makes me well up...

All is forgiven.

As to the rest, the POD would be in 1967 if we're keeping Linda away from Paul so butterflies can stabilize and lead to a gradual slowdown. Having Lennon stay in England and the Beatles playing Woodstock are good "no Linda McCartney" additions that keep the Beatles together and vital until the mid seventies.

I'm pretty sure that JohnandYoko are finished if there's no Lost Weekend. At least, the research seems to verify it and they themselves also said the same thing.

I agree that without the Lost Weekend, the Lennon's marriage is in serious trouble, but I'm not sure keeping Lennon in London makes something similar happening an impossibility. Although the one difference that could lead to a permanent split is the fact that this time it would be Yoko leaving their residence, not Lennon. With enough convergence it's easy enough to see Yoko leaving Lennon behind with a May Pang analogue. Problem is, with John's immigration issues, he might never see her again, which means effectively a permanent split. That's all I meant about not being sure as far as the Lennon's marriage was concerned. With a point of divergence in 1967 though, isn't it simpler to somehow keep Epstein alive? I mean if the goal is to avoid managerial issues and all why not keep the manager from dying when he did. Even if he only lives to see 1969, the group would probably last at least a few years longer.

 

[GBurch]

As a child of the 60s, I can't help being a Beatles fan. I didn't realize how much until my wife started re-collecting all the Beatles albums again and listening to them non-stop. With one or two exceptions on each album, I keep thinking as I re-listen to their music how incredibly creative, adventurous and influential they were. Even when one of their "new directions" pieces isn't the first of its kind (it usually wasn't), it's usually the first one to really express what came to be the way a particular genre or sound ended up developing. (Of course, there's a chicken-and-egg thing there, since when the Beatles dived into a new sound -- including ones they got from elsewhere -- it was often the first time a large audience would have heard it).

Anyway, years ago I had a thought about what I would nowadays call a POD that ends up with major impacts on the Beatles and pop music. It came to mind when I learned that another of my MAJOR musical influences from the late 60s -- Jimi Hendrix -- first encountered serious drug use when he went to England and started running with Eric Clapton and John Lennon. I know the Beatles had been experimenting with acid before this -- very early by the standards of the 1960s. But, as I remember hearing it, it was Clapton who got Lennon and then Hendrix into smack. Bad Things ensued.

WI this doesn't happen? I realize it requires a LOT of changes and some kind of POD before the fateful time that both Lennon and Hendrix both stick a needle in their arms. I can't help but think that a lot of the self-destructive crap that ended up clouding both Lennon's and especially Hendrix's life doesn't happen if they don't start chasing the dragon.

There's still the basic personality differences among the Fab Four; in caricature form, McCartney's glitzey pop idol vs. Lennon's absurdist anarchist with mommy issues vs. Harrison's meditating spiritualist vs. Ringo's grinning fool. Keeping a lid on that would have been worth it for me, though, to get one or two more albums from the great genius of the time (again, for me), Hendrix ... (cue Third Stone From The Sun ...)

 

[loneranger]

I think if the Beatles played at Woodstock they may need to relocate the thing, and increase security by a shit ton. But, now that you mention a farewell tour, that would be absolutely bad-ass. Do you think they'd play old hits, Abbey Road stuff, Let It Be stuff, or a combination of all of their catalogue? Also, which cities/countries do you think they'd tour?

Also, any thoughts on a Lennon-McCartney only reunion/sticking together? Most people would still consider it the Beatles, IMO.

 

[Cicero the Younger]

I'm not sure people would consider that "the Beatles". The Beatles are the single most iconic band of all time, and the classic lineup of "John, Paul, George, and Ringo" is what made the Beatles what they were. Granted, Ringo only wrote two songs for Beatles albums, and John and Paul were kind of assholes about letting George get his material in there, so content-wise, John and Paul with some non-writing backing musicians wouldn't be all that different from the Beatles. But it wouldn't be the Fab Four anymore, so in most people's minds I don't think it would really be "the Beatles", even if they continued to use the name.

 

[Glass Onion]

I think if the Beatles played at Woodstock they may need to relocate the thing, and increase security by a shit ton. But, now that you mention a farewell tour, that would be absolutely bad-ass. Do you think they'd play old hits, Abbey Road stuff, Let It Be stuff, or a combination of all of their catalogue? Also, which cities/countries do you think they'd tour?

Also, any thoughts on a Lennon-McCartney only reunion/sticking together? Most people would still consider it the Beatles, IMO.

A brief trio version of the group might be the outcome of the Get Back sessions if Harrison had stood to his guns, and McCartney had been willing to really really compromise with Lennon to keep the band from simply splitting up there. Of course, it's far more likely they'd just call it quits then and there. And that offers a very interesting question. Would the survival of the Lennon/McCartney relationship be worth the loss of "Abbey Road"?

As for what they'd play, well the problem there is that a Beatles that is still willing to perform in the US in 1969 probably is already different enough that there would be songs we've never heard of. Really all we have to go on is the Dirty Mac, the September 1969 performance of the Plastic Ono Band, the Rooftop concert, and the pseudo performance of Hey Jude and Revolution. Beatles performances were typically about 15 minutes long, so I doubt you'd get a single five hour show out them or something. You'd probably get basically the rooftop concert, with maybe Yer Blues, Revolution, and Hey Jude thrown in. But that outcome under OTL circumstances is next to impossible.

 

[The Admiral Hook]

I think if the Beatles played at Woodstock they may need to relocate the thing, and increase security by a shit ton. But, now that you mention a farewell tour, that would be absolutely bad-ass. Do you think they'd play old hits, Abbey Road stuff, Let It Be stuff, or a combination of all of their catalogue? Also, which cities/countries do you think they'd tour?

Also, any thoughts on a Lennon-McCartney only reunion/sticking together? Most people would still consider it the Beatles, IMO.

Well, Get Back was partly conceived as a roots album of them playing songs they used to cover and new songs that sounded like earlier rock 'n' roll. There was also talk of recording a new version of "Love Me Do" in their newer style. This could be reflected in their hypothetical tour. I think it would largely be a major city stadium tour, but there was also some talk of playing smaller clubs in Hamburg or Liverpool under an assumed name (which would be mega cool...).

Also, I think if Lennon and McCartney are together, the others will be too, barring McCartney pissing Harrison off any worse than in OTL. Monetarily and spiritually, it would be the right thing to do. Ringo at least probably wouldn't go anywhere if it looked like a reinvigoration of the Beatles franchise is going to become a reality.

A brief trio version of the group might be the outcome of the Get Back sessions if Harrison had stood to his guns, and McCartney had been willing to really really compromise with Lennon to keep the band from simply splitting up there. Of course, it's far more likely they'd just call it quits then and there. And that offers a very interesting question. Would the survival of the Lennon/McCartney relationship be worth the loss of "Abbey Road"?

As for what they'd play, well the problem there is that a Beatles that is still willing to perform in the US in 1969 probably is already different enough that there would be songs we've never heard of. Really all we have to go on is the Dirty Mac, the September 1969 performance of the Plastic Ono Band, the Rooftop concert, and the pseudo performance of Hey Jude and Revolution. Beatles performances were typically about 15 minutes long, so I doubt you'd get a single five hour show out them or something. You'd probably get basically the rooftop concert, with maybe Yer Blues, Revolution, and Hey Jude thrown in. But that outcome under OTL circumstances is next to impossible.

Actually, the Beatles were VERY for the idea of playing live again at this time. Ideas for shows included playing on the Queen Elizabeth (which one?) on a trip up the Thames, and a desert show in an old Roman Coliseum.

Other ideas including playing under an assumed name in bars and dancehalls around Europe, but the logistics of this are complex. A tour was not out of the question during this time. However, the band being cohesive enough to agree on any of this is unless we're using one of these PODs. Some changes in song direction are expected but we will still see a lot of OTL's favorites for some time, as the boys were still redoing older unfinished songs until almost the mid seventies as well as writing pretty independently of their situations (i.e. it wasn't all that introspective yet during this time. They could write great pop songs without having anything going on in their personal lives at this time. This is even true for Lennon to some degree).

 

[Constantinople]

Like the Rolling Stones?

No. The Rolling Stones are very much legends. I hate when people say this.

 

[texaskdog]

No. The Rolling Stones are very much legends. I hate when people say this.

If only they had some good songs.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

If only they had some good songs.

Au contraire. The Stones are pretty prolific and deserve their high praise and place in music history. They aren't as universally solid as the Beatles, given that they are not a pseudo super group like the Beatles and also given they've been together for 50 years meaning some stuff had to be below par just by laws of averages, but the Stones have an amazing discography under their belts on the whole. The 60s stuff is especially something you can't under sell.

But please don't necro these threads. Stick to one bumped thread on the Beatles-not-breaking-up topic.

 

[Unknown]

A George Harrison quote about the Beatles (I may be wrong about the wording):

"The biggest break in my career was getting into the Beatles in 1962. The second biggest break since then is getting out of them."

The Beatles would have broken up (John and Paul weren't getting along by the late 1960s, et. al.) eventually.

Getting together for reunion shows--I can see that (heck, even reunion tours in the 1980s, if John Lennon lives) but I really can't see them staying together.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

There is more complexity to it than just that. This is a very nuanced situation, because there were times where the Beatles said "I'm glad it ended" or "it had to end" or "it felt like another life time", and there were times where they talked about how it could have gone on (maybe getting better or worse, but who knows) or how they missed it or how they had trepidation at the break up at first because they were on their own, but they got used to it, and so on. One day/year/phase, they'd say they were glad it was over, and another they'd say they missed it. Such obviously being a reaction to the complexity of their relationship and time together, and being a product and representative of it.

This is a complex situation as much as people are complex and relationships are complex, with all sorts of nuance and double thoughts and various motivators and conditions. A problem with history, and alternate history, is that is tends to simplify. This is more complex because people are complex.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

If only they had some good songs.

Please dont necro threads here, its highly frowned on.

And not for a single sentence snark!

 

[texaskdog]

Au contraire. The Stones are pretty prolific and deserve their high praise and place in music history. They aren't as universally solid as the Beatles, given that they are not a pseudo super group like the Beatles and also given they've been together for 50 years meaning some stuff had to be below par just by laws of averages, but the Stones have an amazing discography under their belts on the whole. The 60s stuff is especially something you can't under sell.

But please don't necro these threads. Stick to one bumped thread on the Beatles-not-breaking-up topic.

Never know. I will give them their longevity and filling that void after 1970. I hated the Beach Boys until 2004 when I discovered their later stuff, and now it's some of my favorite music. I wonder if the Beatles may have become like the Beach Boys, where the stuff was still pretty good but they faded for a while.

 

[texaskdog]

Please dont necro threads here, its highly frowned on.

And not for a single sentence snark!

I don't even know what a necro is.

 

[Athelstane]

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.

It's a cliche routine now, but it's true: Keeping Epstein alive is probably the best chance for extending the Beatles' career past 1969.

But even so, a breakup seems inevitable in hindsight. The band was growing apart, and could no longer find the bad a satisfactory outlet for their individual creative outputs (especially poor George). The wonder is that they stayed together long enough to make Abbey Road.

Surprised me to see this thread alive again. I'm guessing it's headed for a lockdown.