- 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
re: Hypothetical discussion: Beatles don't break up
Posted on 2/21/13 at 2:50 pm to Dr. 3
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.
1
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.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News