Would the Beatles have been as good if they didn't break up?

[liberalpragmatist]

I often fantasize about the Beatles not having broken up exactly when they did. Listen to some of John's first solo stuff -- Jealous Guy, Cold Turkey, Give Me Some Truth -- all were originally Beatles demos. 3/4 of George's All Things Must Pass was would-be Beatles material that George had wanted to record with them but which John and Paul selfishly left on the side. For Paul there was the Badfingers' hit he penned, Come And Get It, and other great songs like Junk, and The Back Seat of My Car. As great as those songs are on their own, I often think about how amazing those could've been had they been done with the Beatles. So I often wish that Let it Be could've been released as Get Back and with 2 or 3 Harrison tunes, I often wish that Abbey Road could've included All Things Must Pass, Come and Get It, and maybe 1 or 2 others. And I often wish that there could've been 1 more album, maybe right before or right after Abbey Road, in addition to Let it Be/Get Back.

At the same time, I wonder. The Beatles' music was quintessentially '60s. It helped define the '60s. I can't help but feel like the quality of their music would've declined and their influence would've lessened had they lived on through the '70s. Most great musical acts fade after a time -- The Stones aren't anywhere near as big as they were in the late '60s/early '70s. Bob Dylan's defined by his '60s stuff.

What do you all think? I still wish that the fantasy I laid out in the first paragraph had come true, but I think that even then, I would've liked them to have broken up around the same time - mid or late 1970. What do you all think?

[Akbar]

1. Their Place in History Might Have Been Damaged

Imagine the meaning of a Beatles disco period, or a television endorsement deal, or a permanent show in Vegas.

[trotsky]

2. Along the same lines as Kennedy or Lincoln

While not nearly as tragic as an assassination, the breakup of the Beatles I think helped solidify their place in history. Granted, I am not knocking them, I just think it was a big boost.

[Fenris]

3. I have often considered this

And my answer would be no. If they hadn't broken up, the quality would have eventually gone down. I think part of the enduring nature of the Beatles is that they never had a bad record and they never had a chance to go "Rolling Stones" (by which I mean releasing crap albums and touring together even though the magic left a long, long time ago). I am thankful that they broke up when they did. Go out near the top rather than near the bottom.

Better to burn out than fade away...

[NightTrain]

4. No.

Almost all of my favorite Beatles songs predate "Sgt. Pepper." And while I believe they never recorded an album that was less than good, I could have done without all that sitar-laden psychedelia the Beatles did in the late '60s. I guess you either had to have been there when that music was new, or else listen to it while you're stoned. Since I wasn't born until 1966 and since I've never taken drugs, I don't particularly care for most late-period Beatles music.

Had the group stayed together beyond 1970, I fear they would eventually have become as flaccid as the Rolling Stones, the Who, Rod Stewart, Eric Cpalton, and far too many other vintage rockers who've insisted on remaining in the game past their prime.

As it is, most of what the solo Beatles recorded leaves me cold. How the hell did McCartney ever make it into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame as a solist, anyway? On the "strength" of "Silly Love Songs," "Ebony and Ivory," and "Live and Let Die"? Good Christ!

[TheZoo]

5. Wow - nice thread !

I've wondered about the same thing.

I think that they would have scrapped "Let It Be" and released the original version, "Get Back". Spector would have been canned for their next album, with McCartney re-recording "Maybe I'm Amazed", Lennon's "Cold Turkey", Harrison's "All Things Must Pass" & "What is Life?" and teaming up with Starr, "It Don't Come Easy".

I'm guessing that they would have released several albums, maybe even backing up Dylan a few times. I think that they would have survived the 70's, but probably would have broken up in the 80's. They would have been the headliner in "Live Aid" and probably would have played on each other's albums. I doubt a Vegas show would be in the works, rather a Who-style tour.

But, it's my dream. At least Marie O8) has the ability to ask George about "Here Comes the Sun". :-)

[Dookus]

6. nope...

just like how Marilyn Monroe, James Dean, Janis Joplin et. al. wouldn't be nearly the icons they are today if they had lived.

As much as I love Madonna, I've always said the best career move she could make would be to die young.

[Journeyman]

7. The secret to immortality. . .

observed George Bernard Shaw, is knowing when to die.

[Don_G]

8. The Beatles Broke Up At The Right Time

They had a hard time getting together as a group and couldn't get the creative magic flowing.

Or would you prefer they did Disco, a poor Pat Boone imitation of "Heavy Metal" music and/or Rap?

Thanks, but I prefer to keep that inital concert at Shea Stadium alive in my mind...and yes I'm that old.

:scared:

[wakfs]

9. Another factor

that's interesting to think about in your excellent fantasy is the fact that The Beatles stopped touring in 1966. Had they not disbanded when they did, it is likely that they would have gotten the itch to perform live again. All the solo Beatles toured after the breakup, didn't they? What effect on their music would this have had in the early 70s?

Interesting to think about certainly.

[Iverson]

10. for at least a little while

However, the forces that drove them creatively were not static, and by the end they were moving in different directions.

Besides, we have "Free As a Bird" and "Real Love" to give us a glimpse of the possibilities.

But you may as well ask what kind of poetry Keats or Shelley would have written if they'd had a normal lifespan. It is tantalizing to wonder, but let's fully appreciate what we've got.

[liberalpragmatist]

11. Yeah

I think most of us are in agreement. Even in my fantasy, they broke up at about the same time. It was the right time for them to go. Basically, my fantasy is relatively modest – to simplify it down, it amounts to them producing enough music for one other album, and for them to have used George more wisely – All Things Must Pass, Let it Down, Hear Me Lord, and Isn’t It a Pity were ALL recorded during the Get Back sessions and could’ve been included on a Get Back album – had the whole thing been produced by George Martin, such an album could’ve been as good as Abbey Road.

But those of you who fault me for living in a fantasy are right. It’s best to be happy with what we have – and look at what we do have! 13 albums, 33 other tracks on the past masters series, a huge volume of recordings on the anthologies and more songs made in 7 years between 1962 and 1969 than most modern musical figures produce in decades. Plus, all those great George songs, and John songs, and Paul songs that are would-be Beatles songs still sound great on those early solo albums.

Of course, I still think that my fantasy could’ve worked out had Brian Epstein lived. But I’m glad they broke up when they did. I do have to say, however, than I REALLY, REALLY wish John hadn’t died :( -- imagine him today. Plus, it’s possible that with them they could’ve reunited briefly around the mid-90s for a reunion tour and maybe 1 or 2 reunion double-albums, then retired back to their own careers. Even if they didn’t reunite, having John around would’ve been amazing.

[Character Assassin]

12. Paul was Apollo C. Vermouth, producting for the Bonzo Dog Band

It seems pretty clear upon a closer look that they had used up the potential that they had together and had to go their own ways or stagnate and just resent each other.