WI: The Beatles Stay Together?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Emperor Norton I

Emperor Norton I

texaskdog said:
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.
Click to expand...

I doubt they'd let it get to that point. The Beach Boys have, sorry to say, evolved into one of those bands where the members continue long past their moment, and drift into the territory of doing concerts at Six Flags for a senile audience. That's also largely because the Beach Boys dropped Brian Wilson and became Mike Love's band, meaning the only thing they did since Wilson that was worth a damn was "Kokomo", which was just a shallow anthem of tropical pop. I like Kokomo well enough, but I understand what it is, and it's not groundbreaking.

The Beatles would be closer to the Rolling Stones, though sturdier because, as I said before, they were a solid super group. Unlike the Stones, they also did not get caught up in fads to the point of tripping or being ridiculous (which is a fate that befell the Stones on more than one occasion). They tended to pioneer the trends, or at least be at the forefront of them.
The Beatles, if you look at their solo work, would have been extremely solid in the 70s and into the 80s, especially when you take into account that they'd be working together on songs and crafting and refining them with a better eye because they had 8 on them. The 1980s were very good to bands and singers of the Beatles era, such as the Rolling Stones and David Bowie, so I see them doing very well in the MTV era. Christ, singers of the 80s were either 20 year olds like Madonna and Michael Jackson and Billy Idol, or they were 40 years old like Mick Jagger and Bowie. It's odd in retrospect.

The barrier would be the 90s, which are the rocks the boats of the 60s rock groups seemed to crash on. I don't know how well they'd do then, and I tend to be of the opinion that they'd break up by then if they felt their work wasn't strong anymore. The Anthology stuff they recorded in the 90s is an indicator as to the 90s Beatles and what they would have sounded like. It isn't a bad sound, though it is different, and it does rely on the quality of their songs.
 

Athelstane

Emperor Norton I said:
I doubt they'd let it get to that point. The Beach Boys have, sorry to say, evolved into one of those bands where the members continue long past their moment, and drift into the territory of doing concerts at Six Flags for a senile audience. That's also largely because the Beach Boys dropped Brian Wilson and became Mike Love's band, meaning the only thing they did since Wilson that was worth a damn was "Kokomo", which was just a shallow anthem of tropical pop. I like Kokomo well enough, but I understand what it is, and it's not groundbreaking.
Click to expand...

That's one thing that the Beatles' breakup accomplished: It allowed them to go out on top, creatively and commercially, with no long slow slide into mediocrity past their sell-by date.
 

texaskdog

Emperor Norton I said:
I doubt they'd let it get to that point. The Beach Boys have, sorry to say, evolved into one of those bands where the members continue long past their moment, and drift into the territory of doing concerts at Six Flags for a senile audience. That's also largely because the Beach Boys dropped Brian Wilson and became Mike Love's band, meaning the only thing they did since Wilson that was worth a damn was "Kokomo", which was just a shallow anthem of tropical pop. I like Kokomo well enough, but I understand what it is, and it's not groundbreaking.

The Beatles would be closer to the Rolling Stones, though sturdier because, as I said before, they were a solid super group. Unlike the Stones, they also did not get caught up in fads to the point of tripping or being ridiculous (which is a fate that befell the Stones on more than one occasion). They tended to pioneer the trends, or at least be at the forefront of them.
The Beatles, if you look at their solo work, would have been extremely solid in the 70s and into the 80s, especially when you take into account that they'd be working together on songs and crafting and refining them with a better eye because they had 8 on them. The 1980s were very good to bands and singers of the Beatles era, such as the Rolling Stones and David Bowie, so I see them doing very well in the MTV era. Christ, singers of the 80s were either 20 year olds like Madonna and Michael Jackson and Billy Idol, or they were 40 years old like Mick Jagger and Bowie. It's odd in retrospect.

The barrier would be the 90s, which are the rocks the boats of the 60s rock groups seemed to crash on. I don't know how well they'd do then, and I tend to be of the opinion that they'd break up by then if they felt their work wasn't strong anymore. The Anthology stuff they recorded in the 90s is an indicator as to the 90s Beatles and what they would have sounded like. It isn't a bad sound, though it is different, and it does rely on the quality of their songs.
Click to expand...

It's funny. I love Three Dog Night and you can get a $30 ticket to see them at the casino. Beach Boys are in that same category. I tried to buy a Monkees presale today and they start at $95. All in the marketing and timing. I despise Kokomo and it did pretty much keep them as an old nostalgia band whereas McCartney, Stones, Springsteen, etc cost a small fortune to see. I'd never go see the Beach Boys without Wilson and I guess he got "fired" just before they were to play Austin so glad I didn't go.

I'm sure they could have sat down and realized hey we don't have to record together that often, maybe one great album every 3 years and still have our solo careers and still been great. You could say their egos get ahead of them but I'm sure each of them made more than as 1/4 of the Beatles.
 

BillyShears

I don't get all this 'poor George', 'Lennon and McCartney were assholes' etc.

I really like George but, I'm not being funny he was a bitter arse for about 20 years after The Beatles.

George should have been more thankful that the other Beatles helped hone his songwriting craft.

That infamous "ill play what you want me to play or I wont play at all" scene in Let It Be demonstrates how hilarious yet how sarcastic and petty he could be if he didn't get his own way (a further example is his annoyance and not being allowed to put his twiddly guitar bits in Hey Jude)
 
Tallest Skil

Tallest Skil

Banned
Then they record Everyday Chemistry sometime in the late '70s. :p
yi9bjig.png
 

Romantic Nihilist

I reckon if they broke up as OTL then reformed in the 90's, they'd have made an album with songs in the style of 'Free as a Bird' and 'Real Love'. The mature, laid back style you know?

They'd be similar to Neil Young in the 90's. Kurt Cobain being a fan won't hurt their standing with Gen X ;)
 

Glass Onion

A Reunion is a stronger possibility than having them staying together perputually. Like I said in another thread, you have to convince John Lennon not to make a final decision in September 1969, and I have no idea how to do that.
 

Romantic Nihilist

Factors that could prolong their existence as a band:


  • Brian Epstein lives
  • No Yoko
  • No White Album (sorry...)
  • Actual attempts at solving disputes between certain band members
 

Paul V McNutt

Banned
[*]No Yoko
I am surprised that has not been more blaming Yoko.I remember a Beatles stay together TL on DW that had Yoko dying in a bombing raid on Tokyo in 1945 was a key POD.
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top