- 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 2:55 pm to Socrates Johnson
According to John Lennon, they would eventually have sounded like ELO
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 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.
Posted on 2/22/13 at 4:00 am to Socrates Johnson
I think the break up was inevitable from the moment the Beatles stopped performing live. They became incredible craftsmen at assembling music in the studio, but they lost the connection with their audience. The creative outburst by John, Paul and George following the break up was them writing songs that they performed for audiences that they were re-connecting with.
If the Beatles had been able to hang together for another couple years improvements in PA systems may have allowed them to begin performing for live audiences again, and maybe they could have flourished. You could see the fun they had playing live together even on th everge of their break up. I think we'd have seen more releases like the White Album. Many obvious solo songs, and a few collaborative efforts.
One thing I'm certain of. If the Beatles had not broken up disco would never have explodewd the way it did. The Beatles would have been much more interested in Reggae, and where the Beatles went music followed.
If the Beatles had been able to hang together for another couple years improvements in PA systems may have allowed them to begin performing for live audiences again, and maybe they could have flourished. You could see the fun they had playing live together even on th everge of their break up. I think we'd have seen more releases like the White Album. Many obvious solo songs, and a few collaborative efforts.
One thing I'm certain of. If the Beatles had not broken up disco would never have explodewd the way it did. The Beatles would have been much more interested in Reggae, and where the Beatles went music followed.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News