|
Post by Panther on Apr 14, 2014 20:24:42 GMT -5
This is a hypothetical sort of question, so if that turns you off, click "back" now...
I normally avoid this type of topic, but I find this one interesting. Basically, I had this discussion regarding another band on another forum (one that most of you know nothing about). Essentially, the matter is about how many and which members of a band "make" the band.
In the case of The Beatles, there has definitively been: - John, Paul, George, Stuart, and Pete - John, Paul, George, and Pete - John, Paul, George, and Ringo (duh!)
Then, there has also been "The Threetles" (Paul, George, and Ringo), but that was only called The Beatles because of John Lennon's central role in the recordings. Had his voice not been there, the others would never have called themselves 'Beatles', which they have said themselves several times.
So, to put it bluntly, my question is this:
In the 1970s, or (if John had lived) in the 1980s and beyond, would you personally consider a line-up of John, Paul, George, and ANYONE (i.e., not Ringo) to be The Beatles?
I suppose another question would be: John, Paul, Ringo, and SOMEONE?
(I'm guessing most fans wouldn't consider a non-Paul or non-John line-up to be The Beatles, but I could be wrong.)
The essential matter here is how/when do fans decide that a certain band is no longer THAT band based on the line-up. Or do we?
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Apr 14, 2014 21:48:01 GMT -5
The reasons could fill a book; my short answer is "no". You need John, a Paul, George and Ringo or it doesn't sound like the beatles.
Unfortunately, on this board most of the posters think you can have the Beatles with Paul, Tom Dick and Harry.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Apr 15, 2014 2:31:09 GMT -5
The reasons could fill a book; my short answer is "no". You need John, a Paul, George and Ringo or it doesn't sound like the beatles. Unfortunately, on this board most of the posters think you can have the Beatles with Paul, Tom Dick and Harry. Well, actually, those of us who were around in the early 70s will remember the beginnings of the Beatles reunion rumors. The first one I remember had John, George, Ringo, Klaus Voorman, and Harry Niilson. At the time, there was no talk of "that would not be the Beatles." In fact, many at the time were quite excited about that happening. I also remember talk about Paul, George, and Ringo getting together, leading the writer to posit about an interesting McCartney/Harrison partnership. That was seen as the Beatles, too. Also, didn't John think at one time of bringing Clapton in to take the place of George when he was on one of his hissy fits? That would have been the Beatles. I doubt seriously that they would have changed the name, like the Yardbirds to Led Zeppelin, or gone by "Lennon, McCartney, Starr, and Clapton." I think what gets in the way of people considering any missing member to be enough to not call it the "Beatles" are the deaths in the midst of the breakup. I think if the Beatles had continued after 1970, but any one of them left without any animus with the rest carrying on, we would have been okay with still calling them the Beatles. Or, if they had been together up until 1980, I think after they recovered from John's death, they would have continued as the Beatles. All this presupposes that they all got along fine and musically they were in sync.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Apr 15, 2014 2:37:38 GMT -5
The reasons could fill a book; my short answer is "no". You need John, a Paul, George and Ringo or it doesn't sound like the beatles. Unfortunately, on this board most of the posters think you can have the Beatles with Paul, Tom Dick and Harry. What's "unfortunate" about that? Curious choice of a word.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Apr 15, 2014 3:11:23 GMT -5
I think it would always have depended on circumstances up to the point when John died, following which under no circumstances (other than, arguably, the Anthology recordings).
And I NEVER accepted "Threetles" as a valid term - that was simply bad journalism and a deeply unpleasant neologism. The correct term is "Moondogs" (without Johnny).
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Apr 15, 2014 4:53:41 GMT -5
I don't think it really matters (to my thread, anyway) what The Beatles themselves would have done, or thought, about this. I'm more interested in what fans think.
Probably best to imagine it in the 70s, when John was still around. As a fan, would you accept any 3 of them (with someone else supporting) to be 'The Beatles', knowing that one ex-member was sitting somewhere far away, not part of it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2014 6:16:42 GMT -5
If Clapton had joined the Beatles after Cream i wonder what he would've thought of the McCartney /Starr rhythm section after leaving behind the Bruce/Baker one ?
The successful Beatles were John, Paul,George and Ringo, the other past members were part of the evolution towards success, if there had have been more line up changes during the successful period would they still have been the Beatles, yes, if they kept going under that name but it's highly unlikely i would be such a devotee so long after they broke up.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Apr 15, 2014 8:08:52 GMT -5
I wrote something a few years ago to the effect of "which threetle line-up would have been most successful? You had all 4 potentials for this from 1968 to 1970. Ringo left, then George, then John and after Paul officially quit, suddenly the other three wanted to form "The Ladders" with Preston and Voorman as sayne alluded to.
If they were to go back live, the best and only acceptable combos would have to have John and Paul. If they were just a studio band, Paul, George and Ringo could have had a whole decade of success if Paul accepted George as an equal and George put up with it. I said recently how cool it would have been if those three recorded All Things Must Pass in January 1970. But I think George still needed to blow his load and prove to the world (and Paul) that he was a heavyweight.
Would fans have accepted this line-up? I think so as long as there wasn't a five year break. And as long as there was no break, why not still call it the Beatles?
I think the Ladder line-up would have been the worst. Paul was the best live performer and best studio guy. I still think I'm the Greatest is the biggest waste of three Beatles on a song. It is not a horrible song, but it is no Photograph.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Apr 15, 2014 8:20:24 GMT -5
No, I would not have accepted any other arrangement of members as "The Beatles" (I mean once Ringo joined them). I think that what made them what they were are John, Paul, George, and Ringo. I have always greatly respected that even The Beatles themselves said this constantly... as soon as one member would have not been there, that would no longer be The Beatles. (However, the one exception was recording "Free As A Bird" and "Real Love" -- yet these still had John on them, and technically they're The Beatles because that's what the members themselves decided).
This organization wasn't The Rolling Stones, where all you really needed was Mick and Keith, and then whoever else (though Charlie Watts I would say was the next most important). And we see where it got them with their mediocre later albums.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Apr 15, 2014 8:29:46 GMT -5
I don't think it really matters (to my thread, anyway) what The Beatles themselves would have done, or thought, about this. I'm more interested in what fans think. Well, it wouldn't have happened in the first place unless the Beatles themselves thought it was a good idea --- right?
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Apr 15, 2014 9:07:19 GMT -5
Well, what if 3 of them thought it was a good idea, and the 4th -- no longer in the band -- didn't?
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Apr 15, 2014 9:30:09 GMT -5
Well, what if 3 of them thought it was a good idea, and the 4th -- no longer in the band -- didn't? Then I'd think the other three would say "forget it" and disband. But it's fine, I gave my other reply; I was only sayin' .
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Apr 15, 2014 9:58:37 GMT -5
My answer is that there would be no "Beatles" for purposes of concerts or recordings without John, Paul, George and Ringo while all four were alive and then no Beatles for concert purposes once John was murdered and only limited for studio purposes, as long as John(and now George) can somehow be included by pre-recorded material.
But as we saw with FAAB and RL, even that is shaky!
I will commit as just one fan to say I want all four or it ain't The Beatles!
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Apr 15, 2014 11:01:55 GMT -5
Well, what if 3 of them thought it was a good idea, and the 4th -- no longer in the band -- didn't? Ask Roger Waters... Seriously, some people consider Pink Floyd as THE band, and in the 80s when Gilmour made a basic marketing decision to keep the name alive with the almost token addition of the other two members, there was all sorts of controversy and of course Waters' court pursuits. But, the Threenk Floyd (I'm joking!!!) toured and sold out stadiums in both the late eighties and again in the early 90s.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Apr 15, 2014 11:18:15 GMT -5
I think some people here are thinking with their 40-60 year old minds and memories instead of how they would have thought as a much younger person. I'm sure that if at any time after 1970 any three of them recorded AND toured as the Beatles, you'd all buy the records and try to buy tickets. Sure there might be grousing about the one member being gone or maybe criticism that "they'd be better if _____ was there," but in this alternate universe, we'd be seeing them as the Beatles at the time it was happening.
People are funny. They do not see the Tonight Show without Carson, Star Trek without Kirk and Spock, AC DC without Bon Scott, etc and never will.
|
|
|
Post by coachbk on Apr 15, 2014 11:24:01 GMT -5
I remember reading something where John was talking about "I Am The Greatest" and saying he enjoyed it except when George was talking about how they should reform the Beatles with Billy Preston and Klauss Voormann replacing Paul and John was thinking, "No, that's not the Beatles".
I think John knew it was over after ABBEY ROAD. He wasn't one to look back.
I have doubts if I would have accepted as THE BEATLES any band that did not include John, Paul, George, and Ringo.
I do accept "Free As A Bird" and "Real Love" as the Beatles since all 4 are present.
I accept all performances with one or more Beatle missing as Beatles recording up to and including "I Me Mine".
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Apr 15, 2014 14:00:03 GMT -5
I remember reading something where John was talking about "I Am The Greatest" and saying he enjoyed it except when George was talking about how they should reform the Beatles with Billy Preston and Klauss Voormann replacing Paul and John was thinking, "No, that's not the Beatles". I think John knew it was over after ABBEY ROAD. He wasn't one to look back. I have doubts if I would have accepted as THE BEATLES any band that did not include John, Paul, George, and Ringo. I do accept "Free As A Bird" and "Real Love" as the Beatles since all 4 are present. I accept all performances with one or more Beatle missing as Beatles recording up to and including "I Me Mine". I thought it was more of "Yoko won't allow that". But then again, this might have been the start of the lost weekend. I think the closest the Beatles came to being a trio was in January 1970. I think they could have done their solo things and then as a trio they would have done well, John may have even joined them for some songs as he immediately recorded with Ringo and next LP George. This was months after John asked for a divorce and here they were recording a "new" studio song. Klein was the biggest obstacle, and Spector was probably second. I think an indicator of how they might have carried on would be if we could hear "Peggy Sue Got Married" recorded at that session as a jam. If they clicked, then there was still chemistry. If George plugged in his wah wah...
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Apr 15, 2014 14:01:51 GMT -5
I think some people here are thinking with their 40-60 year old minds and memories instead of how they would have thought as a much younger person. I'm sure that if at any time after 1970 any three of them recorded AND toured as the Beatles, you'd all buy the records and try to buy tickets. Sure there might be grousing about the one member being gone or maybe criticism that "they'd be better if _____ was there," but in this alternate universe, we'd be seeing them as the Beatles at the time it was happening. People are funny. They do not see the Tonight Show without Carson, Star Trek without Kirk and Spock, AC DC without Bon Scott, etc and never will. Yeah, but the Doors couldn't pull it off
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Apr 15, 2014 14:12:08 GMT -5
The important thing with the Beatles is that they still had three lead vocalists. Yeah Ringo counts!
Now if the three reconvened after 1980, I'd have more of a problem with the name, but it would be their call not mine.
|
|
|
Post by stavros on Apr 15, 2014 16:02:53 GMT -5
If I think back to being 9 or 10 in the closing years of 1970s Britain then it always seemed that John was totally distant. Ringo's career had vanished and George was still putting out some good music but no longer having hits here in the UK. In fact even Paul was struggling once Mull of Kintyre had left the charts in 1978. At that time any Beatles re-union seemed so far away. (Even though we did get Clapton's wedding when 3 Beatles jammed together). I guess at one time Lonnie Donegan could have been part of the band . But the Beatles were so massive and so famous that they were and always had to be - John, Paul, George and Ringo. They were not a typical band where the hierarchy usually goes from lead singer, through lead guitarist, bass player to drummer. They were the most famous band that has ever been and one that no single member could satisfactorily be replaced. Ringo always remained good friends with, and continued to work with all the other Beatles right up to date. So I could not foresee him ever being replaced with another drummer. As Macca says they were the four corners of the square and if one was missing it was no longer the Beatles. Aaaaah what might have been............. ..
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Apr 15, 2014 18:29:19 GMT -5
Going back to 1970 and the speculation about replacing Paul with Klaus Voorman, as a keen reader of Melody Maker and NME at the time, I read it with interest, and I'm pretty sure of two things. One is that I never articulated to myself that John, George, Ringo and Klaus would not (or, for that matter, would) ever be "The Beatles", and the other is that on some level I knew they would not be, no matter what logo was painted on the bass drumhead.
An interesting parallel is Queen, touring with Paul Rodgers as vocalist and including a spot where they play with the ghost of Freddie/tapes of his voice. Is it Queen? They say they are.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Apr 15, 2014 19:28:57 GMT -5
Going back to 1970 and the speculation about replacing Paul with Klaus Voorman, as a keen reader of Melody Maker and NME at the time, I read it with interest, and I'm pretty sure of two things. One is that I never articulated to myself that John, George, Ringo and Klaus would not (or, for that matter, would) ever be "The Beatles", and the other is that on some level I knew they would not be, no matter what logo was painted on the bass drumhead. An interesting parallel is Queen, touring with Paul Rodgers as vocalist and including a spot where they play with the ghost of Freddie/tapes of his voice. Is it Queen? They say they are. It's one thing to finish someone's work in the studio, but I am not a fan of musicians playing on stage with a film clip of a dead star.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Apr 15, 2014 20:00:56 GMT -5
Going back to 1970 and the speculation about replacing Paul with Klaus Voorman, as a keen reader of Melody Maker and NME at the time, I read it with interest, and I'm pretty sure of two things. One is that I never articulated to myself that John, George, Ringo and Klaus would not (or, for that matter, would) ever be "The Beatles", and the other is that on some level I knew they would not be, no matter what logo was painted on the bass drumhead. An interesting parallel is Queen, touring with Paul Rodgers as vocalist and including a spot where they play with the ghost of Freddie/tapes of his voice. Is it Queen? They say they are. It's one thing to finish someone's work in the studio, but I am not a fan of musicians playing on stage with a film clip of a dead star. Although Natalie Cole doing it with her father's image worked really well on the video.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Apr 15, 2014 20:28:01 GMT -5
I think what many are saying is that because the surviving Beatles said it could never be the Beatles without one of them then that made it so. Then, that means if they never said it, then it would be okay and possible. I'm starting to think that they said it NOT because it was so, but to silence everyone about them getting back together in any form. Even after John died, people kept asking them if they would get together. I suspect the firm and sometimes nasty "NO" or "Not unless John is there" or "the Beatles are 4 people," etc, was a way of getting everyone to shut up about the subject because playing with the others on a permanent or semi-permanant basis was something they did not want to do, both for musical reasons and personal reasons. I tend to think that if the Beatles broke up, like say the DC5 did, we'd be more accepting of a 3 person reunion.
Picture this scenario. The Beatles simply decide to end the partnership. They tell the world that they love each other very much, but they feel that they've taken the band as far as it can go. There is no lawsuit. Six years later, one of them gets the urge to work with the others and phones them all up. One of them says, "Thanks, guys, but I'll sit this one out. You've got my blessing, though." So, they go out and do it - as the Beatles. We'd buy our tickets and always hope that the one who wasn't there would make a surprise appearance, like Mike Nesmith or Brian Wilson or Art Garfunkel or Steve Perry or David Lee Roth or anyone else we want back in the fold.
Look, they got "divorced." it was not a simple matter of "calling it a day." In real divorces, couples may get to the point that they can be in the same room again, but I'm sure it would be very tedious and irksome for people to continually ask if you were going to remarry.
PS I just thought of something. I guess there was no "Beatles" show while Ringo was sick with tonsillitis. Also, can we say that Yesterday is not a Beatles' song?
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Apr 15, 2014 20:40:19 GMT -5
Yeah, but the Doors couldn't pull it off THAT is not even comparable. But, they did get together eventually with Ian Astbury and only two Doors. If not for the legal issue of using the name ( I think they used the name Doors of the 21st Century), people would have had no problem saying they were going to see the Doors.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Apr 15, 2014 23:01:02 GMT -5
It's one thing to finish someone's work in the studio, but I am not a fan of musicians playing on stage with a film clip of a dead star. Although Natalie Cole doing it with her father's image worked really well on the video. well, that was her dad. I have less of a problem with that and it was a performance video.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Apr 15, 2014 23:03:06 GMT -5
Yeah, but the Doors couldn't pull it off THAT is not even comparable. But, they did get together eventually with Ian Astbury and only two Doors. If not for the legal issue of using the name ( I think they used the name Doors of the 21st Century), people would have had no problem saying they were going to see the Doors. I was refering to the two LPs right after Morrison died, with Manzarek doing most of the singing.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Apr 16, 2014 0:02:20 GMT -5
PS I just thought of something. I guess there was no "Beatles" show while Ringo was sick with tonsillitis. Also, can we say that Yesterday is not a Beatles' song? It's up to them. They still called themselves The Beatles for touring purposes when Ringo was out sick, but of course you realize that this was just a temporary thing to keep up the routine and make the gigs while Ringo was gone. There was a lot involved and at stake at the time. As for "Yesterday", it was a Beatles song because that's what they decided it was.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Apr 16, 2014 4:22:46 GMT -5
The reason this topic came to mind is that, as mentioned, I had discussed a similar thing about another band on another forum. In the case of that particular band, there was a familiar 4-piece line up, and, after a difficult period, the drummer quit/was fired and was replaced by another musician for a world tour.
That original drummer is very popular and influential, and some fans say that without him, it's not "that" band. But most fans can accept that it was "that" band even with a different drummer.
A year after all this, the guitarist also quit. He was the main musical force in the group. At that point, the remaining members drafted in a session-musician guitarist and played a few more festival shows, while keeping the original band name. But fans and the media could not accept it, and the will of the people plus media basically forced the band to fold.
I wonder if Paul, George, and Ringo had decided to make a new album, or even a single, as a three-piece, and had called it "The Beatles", would fandom accept it? I suspect not.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Apr 16, 2014 13:24:31 GMT -5
The Who, The Rolling Stones, The Hollies, Manfred Mann....
It's not exactly unknown.
|
|