WI Beatles Stay Together?

[randomideaguy]

I was thinking, once I finish my Amaravati TL, would anyone be interested in a Beatles Stay Together timeline? This wouldn't be like the one where they get back together on in SNL in the mid-70s, this would just have them never breaking up. I've been researching them quite a bit lately, and I think I've got some PODs that would suffice. Regardless, what are the thoughts of CF.net on how the Beatles would survive, and where they would go?

[Sir Ironside]

I'd heard that Harrison had some fears that there where fans like Mark David Chapman.

[Alex]

I think that it is entirely possible, although the long-term impact of their music and ideology might be somewhat less. They will be seen less as musical revolutionaries full of mystique that inspired an entire generation, but more of a "heritage" act. They may experience a decline in their popularity by the late 70s/early 80s after a string of so-so albums, or once they start running out of musical ideas; perhaps they might toy with the new(er) styles of music coming out, like punk and even metal (considering how much of early metal was inspired by The Beatles, I wouldn't be surprised to have a "metal" The Beatles album at some point or another). By the 80s they might go the Genesis route in making some poppier music, and perhaps have a "back to the roots" situation by the 90s. Maybe even a few lineup changes by the mid-70s (I know, unlikely, but not impossible), with a "classic lineup" reunion for Live Aid equivalent as a one-off, and perhaps for a "comeback" album/tour by the 90s.

I think a big part of The Beatles' success and impact is the fact that they seemingly fell apart at the top of their game, having achieved in less than a decade what many bands/artists labor their entire multi-generational careers trying to do. They stopped at precisely the right time, before the impact was diluted. Which is what I would probably expect in a TL where The Beatles do not break up.

[randomideaguy]

It is very much possible, but as with the Kurt Cobain lives TL, I need to knock on two or three PODs. My idea would be for their manager to survive, a tour to be set up in 1967, and "For You Blue" replaced by "All Things Must Pass" during the Twickenham rehearsals.

And so-so albums? Let It Be was the masterpiece that got me into the Beatles into the first place! IMO, it's one of their greatest albums. As for their influence waning, that is debatable, but also granted. For instance, many people look fondly upon earlier MJ music, while almost ignoring his recent stuff, which irks me a bit, but I could see such a situation evolving here if they do make some shite. I think things might get more interesting because they will be experimenting with a much more dynamic songwriting relationship, which nearly all of them contributing in some way.

They may decrease in popularity, but who said the TL would be a utopia?

[Alex]

Originally Posted by randomideaguy

It is very much possible, but as with the Kurt Cobain lives TL, I need to knock on two or three PODs. My idea would be for their manager to survive, a tour to be set up in 1967, and "For You Blue" replaced by "All Things Must Pass" during the Twickenham rehearsals.

And so-so albums? Let It Be was the masterpiece that got me into the Beatles into the first place! IMO, it's one of their greatest albums. As for their influence waning, that is debatable, but also granted. For instance, many people look fondly upon earlier MJ music, while almost ignoring his recent stuff, which irks me a bit, but I could see such a situation evolving here if they do make some shite. I think things might get more interesting because they will be experimenting with a much more dynamic songwriting relationship, which nearly all of them contributing in some way.

They may decrease in popularity, but who said the TL would be a utopia?

What I meant by a "string of so-so albums" was that eventually, the Beatles would run out of creative juices, and while "Let It Be" was a strong finishing note, the question remains if they would be capable of maintaining the same level of quality with their output. For the most part, the Beatles' members output in the 70s and beyond has been unremarkable, with a few exceptions here and there, but it did not turn the world upside down - hence my assumption that sooner or later the band will have a few duds in their catalogue. Late 70s sound like about the right time, with the changing cultural and musical climate.

[Phil Kearny]

Many believe that part of the decline was that competition between Messrs Lennon and McCartney made each better together than apart. The parts were not as good as the whole.

Originally Posted by Alex

What I meant by a "string of so-so albums" was that eventually, the Beatles would run out of creative juices, and while "Let It Be" was a strong finishing note, the question remains if they would be capable of maintaining the same level of quality with their output. For the most part, the Beatles' members output in the 70s and beyond has been unremarkable, with a few exceptions here and there, but it did not turn the world upside down - hence my assumption that sooner or later the band will have a few duds in their catalogue. Late 70s sound like about the right time, with the changing cultural and musical climate.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Phil Kearny

Many believe that part of the decline was that competition between Messrs Lennon and McCartney made each better together than apart. The parts were not as good as the whole.

That too, but the question still remains, how long could they continue to create quality albums on a consistent basis? I cannot think of any bands that had 20+ year long careers without having any "dud" albums, or having peaks and troughs in popularity.

Black Sabbath suffered a major dip in popularity after Dio left, and that in itself was after they were rejuvenated by Dio involvement after a string of lackluster records in late '70s. Queen had several hit-and-miss records, including somewhat less successful (although still very good) "Jazz", a flop like "Hot Space", and mixed reception of some of their works released in the 80s. Iron Maiden's musical output from 1990 through 1998 was mostly forgettable, and for a good reason (although I happen to like some of it, but then, that's just me), with a corresponding dip in the popularity. Rush went through many changes in sound, and still had their lesser moments, or albums that were mostly overlooked. Metallica has not made a good album since 1988. And these are just the bands that had big hits and major popularity.

I would almost consider it a law of music that with 20+ years of recording output, there are bound to be some lesser records even with the most talented musicians. Those could be either stylistic left turns (perhaps experimental albums, or attempts to cash in on a more commercial style of music, or even trying to stay on top of the current trends), or rushed albums (perhaps someone is trying to ride the coattails of a successful record, or to fulfill contractual obligations, or maybe just the need to pay for that mansion or to send the kids to college). Enough of those albums will make the artist into a "heritage" act, playing the hits while no one gives a damn about any new music they release. And then, such artists will quickly fade into irrelevancy. Even if it will be comfortable irrelevancy spent in cabins on board private planes, back seats of expensive limos, and Olympic size pools in mansions on remote tropical paradise islands...

[randomideaguy]

I wonder what effect a surviving Beatles would have on Led Zeppelin, and the effects the Leds would have on the Beatles. Like you said, riding on the coattails of anothers success.

[bobc]

Would Yoko Ono be on stage with them?
Would the songs of Wings be recorded as Beatles songs?