- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Hypothetical discussion: Beatles don't break up
Posted on 2/21/13 at 2:09 pm
Posted on 2/21/13 at 2:09 pm
I was just listening to "Isn't It a Pity?"(from, in my opinion, the best post-Beatles album) and was reminded of a few thoughts I had a few weeks ago.
If the Beatles never break up, and no members release those solo albums, do you think that most of the good solo songs would've been released as a band?
After the high note that was his contribution to Abbey Road, does George still get just a few songs?
Do you think they would've added a Billy Preston or a Jeff Lynne to the band?
If the Beatles never break up, and no members release those solo albums, do you think that most of the good solo songs would've been released as a band?
After the high note that was his contribution to Abbey Road, does George still get just a few songs?
Do you think they would've added a Billy Preston or a Jeff Lynne to the band?
This post was edited on 2/21/13 at 2:10 pm
8
Posted on 2/21/13 at 2:33 pm to Socrates Johnson
You would have to tell us the relationship moving forward. Still the same? Well, John and Paul pretty much had their foot on George's neck creatively and I dont think that would have changed.
Posted on 2/21/13 at 2:47 pm to Socrates Johnson
It's intriguing to speculate on how the Beatles might have fared in the fractured, arena-rock age of the '70s.
IMHO, they would have maintained their popularity, but lost their position as cultural trendsetters.
Even if the Beatles hadn't broken up when they did -- let's say they broke up in 1980 -- there would have been solo albums. Either that, or Harrison would have quit the band completely.
Also the Beatles are unique in that they had two superduperstar frontmen. So even in the best of circumstances -- Brian Epstein lives, no Klein, no Yoko -- there would have been ego clashes between Lennon and McCartney. I can't see a scenario where at least one of them doesn't release solo albums.
No they would not have been willing to split the money
That would be Plastic Ono Band
IMHO, they would have maintained their popularity, but lost their position as cultural trendsetters.
quote:
If the Beatles never break up, and no members release those solo albums
Even if the Beatles hadn't broken up when they did -- let's say they broke up in 1980 -- there would have been solo albums. Either that, or Harrison would have quit the band completely.
Also the Beatles are unique in that they had two superduperstar frontmen. So even in the best of circumstances -- Brian Epstein lives, no Klein, no Yoko -- there would have been ego clashes between Lennon and McCartney. I can't see a scenario where at least one of them doesn't release solo albums.
quote:
Do you think they would've added a Billy Preston or a Jeff Lynne to the band?
No they would not have been willing to split the money
quote:
the best post-Beatles album
That would be Plastic Ono Band
Posted on 2/21/13 at 2:50 pm to Dr. 3
For our purposes, let's say John and Yoko have a normal relationship where he leaves her daily in order to go to work. John still has the same outspoken interests, though. It's known the members did have a problem with her. We'll remove her from the studio.
Paul is less into himself.
George is still interested in Eastern stuff, but less into drugs.
Ringo plays the drums.
Paul is less into himself.
George is still interested in Eastern stuff, but less into drugs.
Ringo plays the drums.
Posted on 2/21/13 at 2:55 pm to Socrates Johnson
According to John Lennon, they would eventually have sounded like ELO
Posted on 2/21/13 at 2:56 pm to genro
quote:
According to John Lennon, they would eventually have sounded like ELO
Thank God they broke up
Posted on 2/21/13 at 3:01 pm to Kafka
OK, let's say there are solo albums. Which songs are made by the whole?
Some songs sound too dumb to be Beatles songs, Songs like "Jet" are too poppy to make it through their process, but a lot of his early stuff is great. Are some of John's early songs too dark? Does George get 3 songs?
I'm intrigued by what could've been done with their solo songs as a band, especially in the early 70s.
Some songs sound too dumb to be Beatles songs, Songs like "Jet" are too poppy to make it through their process, but a lot of his early stuff is great. Are some of John's early songs too dark? Does George get 3 songs?
I'm intrigued by what could've been done with their solo songs as a band, especially in the early 70s.
Posted on 2/21/13 at 3:13 pm to Socrates Johnson
Paul was itching to play live again. He wanted them to play a concert for TV and possibly tour. The others were dead set against it. The roof top was all we got. It was a semi-concert & recording session.
George was fed up but John and Paul recognized the goods with 'Something'. He may have gotten an additional song on an album.
The latter years were essentially 'solo' songs that they brought to the table - more so than in years past when John and Paul might colaborate more on a song.
Billy Preston was brought in by George because he knew that there wouldn't be as much arguing in front of a guest. I think they would've had to do solo work to stretch their wings, then maybe do more Beatles albums. The management situation didn't help matters either with Allen Klein. I think Paul was right not to want Klein cuz he's a sleazy fricker (he screwed the Stones out of all their recorded work and songs from '62-'70) but having his father-in-law Eastman be manager was not the right choice either.
I think the right thing would've been to wait a couple years and make another Beatles album.
George was fed up but John and Paul recognized the goods with 'Something'. He may have gotten an additional song on an album.
The latter years were essentially 'solo' songs that they brought to the table - more so than in years past when John and Paul might colaborate more on a song.
Billy Preston was brought in by George because he knew that there wouldn't be as much arguing in front of a guest. I think they would've had to do solo work to stretch their wings, then maybe do more Beatles albums. The management situation didn't help matters either with Allen Klein. I think Paul was right not to want Klein cuz he's a sleazy fricker (he screwed the Stones out of all their recorded work and songs from '62-'70) but having his father-in-law Eastman be manager was not the right choice either.
I think the right thing would've been to wait a couple years and make another Beatles album.
Posted on 2/21/13 at 3:44 pm to Kafka
quote:
Thank God they broke up
Beat me to it.
Also, the idea that they would be releasing Lennon's crappy adult-oriented easy listening under the Beatles name makes me throw up in my mouth. Double Fantasy is an abomination. How did the same guy make Plastic Ono Band?
Posted on 2/21/13 at 4:50 pm to Baloo
or "Say, Say, Say" by the Beatles and Michael Jackson. That could've existed.
I think in any alternate universe where they didn't break up when they did, they were at least done by at least '78.
Oh, but the early 70s was so good for them. I'd imagine a lot of George's stuff could've used some of Paul pop input and arranging. I'm thinking similar to Leon Russell's "Beware of Darkness."
I think in any alternate universe where they didn't break up when they did, they were at least done by at least '78.
Oh, but the early 70s was so good for them. I'd imagine a lot of George's stuff could've used some of Paul pop input and arranging. I'm thinking similar to Leon Russell's "Beware of Darkness."
Posted on 2/21/13 at 5:03 pm to Socrates Johnson
A Beatles album with Maybe I'm Amazed,My Sweet Lord,Imagine,What is Life?, Well Well Well, and others would have been so epcot
Posted on 2/21/13 at 5:19 pm to HeadyBrosevelt
quote:
epcot
Slang for ahead of its time?
Posted on 2/21/13 at 5:52 pm to Socrates Johnson
Autocorrect of epic
That would be my guess
That would be my guess
Posted on 2/21/13 at 5:57 pm to Socrates Johnson
john lennon was the most talented one. He would've only gotten better if he didn't leave the band to pursue his solo career.
Posted on 2/21/13 at 6:13 pm to Socrates Johnson
Just think if all of their 1971 songs were on one album 
Posted on 2/21/13 at 6:22 pm to Citizen Kane
quote:
john lennon was the most talented one
Maybe lyrically (that could be a huge debate) but musically Paul destroys the rest
Posted on 2/21/13 at 6:58 pm to Citizen Kane
quote:
Citizen Kane
Member since Feb 2013
3 posts
Posted on 2/21/13 at 9:33 pm to Kafka
"All Things Must Pass" couldn't have come out in its entirety under the Beatles name. All of George's pent-up work finally bursting out.
Kafka, would you mind telling something about yourself, age, background, etc.? You strike me as being too intelligent and insightful to have 56K posts on here. That's intended as a compliment.
Kafka, would you mind telling something about yourself, age, background, etc.? You strike me as being too intelligent and insightful to have 56K posts on here. That's intended as a compliment.
Posted on 2/21/13 at 9:40 pm to ULL Cool J
quote:
All of George's pent-up work finally bursting out.
i think he would have been the first to leave...i doubt "songs for bangladesh" would have come about otherwise...or "all things must pass", which is one of my favorite albums.
Posted on 2/21/13 at 9:46 pm to Socrates Johnson
The Beatles got better the more drugs they experimented with. Had they stayed together and survived until now they'd blow minds.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News