|
Post by coachbk on Jun 16, 2014 20:51:37 GMT -5
What if the Beatles hadn't broken up and made another album? What might it have looked like?
Here's one pretty strong album:
SIDE 1: 1. Instant Karma 2. Another Day 3. What Is Life 4. It Don't Come Easy 5. Jealous Guy 6. Junk 7. Run Of The Mill SIDE 2: 1. Give Me Some Truth 2. Every Night 3. Beware Of Darkness 4. Early 1970 5. Love 6. Maybe I'm Amazed 7. All Things Must Pass
|
|
|
Post by stavros on Jun 17, 2014 16:27:17 GMT -5
Seeing as no one else has bothered as yet to reply. I actually like that album. It starts with a good rocker and ends with a mighty fine piece that could have and perhaps should have ended the "Let it Be" album.
Can we find a place for songs like "Oh My Love", "Back Seat of My Car", "Isn't it a Pity", "Remember" or "Uncle Albert"?
I think that the Beatles solo output in the immediate aftermath of the break up was as good as anything they ever did as a band.(Taking into account that four solo albums required an amount of filler when a single Beatles album could be sourced from all four Beatles best tracks) . So you can make a case for a number of good albums like this with various track listings for a number of years after 1970.
Looking at it from a totally alternative history point of view.
It was the arrival of people from America (Yoko, Linda, Klein, Spector) that coincided with the final days of the Beatles. So we have to remember the impact this obviously had on the members of the band. Some songs may well have never seen the light of day with the lyrical content we are accustomed to had the Beatles stayed together. Would George Martin have continued as producer and "Let it Be" have sounded closer to the Glyn Johns version?
What Beatles singles would be released? "My Sweet Lord" may have been vetoed by John and Paul for being too religious and never have gained the popularity and notoriety it did. Would Paul have even considered making anything as radical as "Wild Life"? I also doubt that John, had he never been exposed to an oriental influence, got involved in the radical politics of Western counter-culture and put out anything as amateurish as STINYC.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jun 17, 2014 18:24:25 GMT -5
I also doubt that John, had he never been exposed to an oriental influence, got involved in the radical politics of Western counter-culture... Bit of a weird association there... just sayin'.
|
|
|
Post by stavros on Jun 17, 2014 18:44:22 GMT -5
I also doubt that John, had he never been exposed to an oriental influence, got involved in the radical politics of Western counter-culture... Bit of a weird association there... just sayin'. Not my association it has been made before. Pete Doggett's Book is the source of that information. You Never Give Me Your Money - DoggettThat and it is very hard to make an argument for John becoming the political activist in early 1970s America if Yoko never made a transatlantic trip to England. Her 'art' without the support of John would have ended up as nothing. In fact even with the financial support of Lennon, if you take her out of the Beatles circle her work is pretty much irrelevant.
|
|
kc
Beatle Freak
Posts: 1,085
|
Post by kc on Jun 17, 2014 21:37:44 GMT -5
A well worn path revisited.
Just for the record, coachbk, I think your album is very good.
However, the thing is that there are so many different ways of addressing this counterfactual. Will it be one final album, or the first of several, or even many? Will it be a single LP, or a double? Is every solo song liable for inclusion, or are some to be ruled out? Will it be a compilation of previously, or contempoaneously released singles, plus odds and ends to pad it out, or will it be a set of all new material? Will the tracks be approximately evenly sourced from John, Paul and George, or will they not? Will it be a 1970 release, or 1971?
What are the parameters, or are there none?
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Jun 18, 2014 3:13:13 GMT -5
The REALLY interesting material is the material which would have existed if this had happened, but never existed in real life.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jun 18, 2014 12:13:52 GMT -5
What if the Beatles hadn't broken up and made another album? What might it have looked like? Here's one pretty strong album: SIDE 1: 1. Instant Karma 2. Another Day 3. What Is Life 4. It Don't Come Easy 5. Jealous Guy 6. Junk 7. Run Of The Mill SIDE 2: 1. Give Me Some Truth 2. Every Night 3. Beware Of Darkness 4. Early 1970 5. Love 6. Maybe I'm Amazed 7. All Things Must Pass For my taste, I think I'd rather have "Mother" on there instead of "Love," "Isn't It a Pity," instead of "Run of the Mill," and "Oh, Woman, Oh Why" instead of "Junk."
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jun 18, 2014 12:43:15 GMT -5
1970 through 1971 lends itself to some amazing possibilities for a last great Beatles' album culled from the known solo material.
The sad thing is that after that we'd be hardpressed to come up with a Beatles-worthy album. 1973 might be the very last time all four were firing properly but still not as strong as 1970-1971. And John is absent but for DF material from 1975 through 1980 and in that same period Ringo is crap and while George does get his act together again by 33 1/3 and GH, is any of that Beatles-worthy? And no slack for Paul as I don't see much from him that is Beatles worthy from 1975 to 1980 and yes I know that period includes the vastly over-rated V&M album.
I am glad that The Beatles broke-up when they did. They had maybe one great album left but we have it anyway in the form of the solo music.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jun 18, 2014 14:33:07 GMT -5
. . . I am glad that The Beatles broke-up when they did. They had maybe one great album left but we have it anyway in the form of the solo music. Yes, you might be right, but at the same time, if they had George Martin and each of the other 3 as conduits and/or editors, you never know. After all, didn't they make something out of lesser songs like All Together Now and It's Only a Northern Song and the Let It Be album was certainly salvaged after Abbey Road. I've always thought that a whole lot of the solo stuff that people generally see as lesser than Beatles songs would actually have been seen in a much better light if they were Beatles songs, and quite a few of the Beatles songs would have been seen as crap if they were released as solo material, for example Honey Pie or Why Don't We Do It In the Road or Your Mother Should Know.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 18, 2014 15:14:19 GMT -5
You're right, we never know. Better we know they ended it before their music deteriorated. The Beatles went out on a high with ABBEY ROAD, their final album.
"The Beatles split in '69 and since then they've been doin' fine. And if that question doesn't cease, ain't nobody gonna get no peace".
And the great solo stuff is great as it is, because it's solo. Who knows if much of it would have sounded as good as it did otherwise? That's part of the appeal, just as they stand.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jun 18, 2014 15:39:11 GMT -5
Very true! Good points and they are similar the "unknown" factor vectis referred to above.
History shows us what solo songs there actually were but had the Beatles truly stayed together perhaps there were many more "A Day In The Life's" to be written or, more accurately, cobbled together. And who knows, as well as Paul and George worked together on AR, had things worked out just a little differently maybe they would have written together if the band stayed intact.
I think the problem always comes back to a disengaged John by 1969. He wanted out period to do his thing with Yoko. I firmly believe that if John Lennon truly wanted to stay a Beatle, even if just to release an album every two years with them, then problems like even Allen Klein could have been overcome. Lennon was hell bent to get free so Klein and every other issue like wives and Apple became unbearable.
If there could have been a happy medium between JohnandYoko and Lennon/McCartney, we would have had the Beatles a lot longer and who knows what heights could have been reached? But that happy medium was impossible because either Paul or Yoko were going to win John's partnership but it could never be both by reason of John's emotional make-up!
John has said that Yoko had an unfair advantage because he could have an intense artistic relationship with her just as he could with Paul but he could sleep with Yoko too! But for whatever reason John felt he couldn't work with both or didn't want to.
But yeah, we cannot look at the solo catalog as is(1970-1980) and say those would be the exact same songs written and recorded by an intact Beatles.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 18, 2014 17:11:25 GMT -5
I think the problem always comes back to a disengaged John by 1969. He wanted out period to do his thing with Yoko. I firmly believe that if John Lennon truly wanted to stay a Beatle, even if just to release an album every two years with them, then problems like even Allen Klein could have been overcome. Lennon was hell bent to get free so Klein and every other issue like wives and Apple became unbearable. All true, and a major factor. However, there also was the matter of George really becoming the equal of Lennon & McCartney with the music he was cranking out in 1968 and 1969 .... there wasn't enough room for George to be on equal footing with John and Paul. Even if John had never met Yoko -- and even if there was no dissention within the band -- the law of averages would dictate that they had to flop big, eventually. I am just happy that they never laid an egg musically, and just went on and on for years going through the motions like... (The Stones - *COUGH!*). Would we have this wonderful, almost MAGICAL Legacy that we do today if The Beatles had stuck it out past their expiration date? I doubt it. Maybe to some fans that's okay with them, they'd be pleased with The Beatles just becoming another band that had good albums and poor albums, and mediocre -- and were not like "Gods". Maybe others wouldn't care if they became like Bachman Turner Overdrive, or The Cars (both of whom I like), or "just some other group" with hits and misses. Me, I love it that they're God-Like in their success above all others.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jun 18, 2014 17:46:46 GMT -5
I personally like the Beatles' solo stuff in 1970 and 1971 more than I like The Beatles' material in 1963 (maybe), 1964, 1966, and 1967. (I don't mention 1965, 1968, 1969 since those years feature so many great Beatle songs.)
It's beyond dispute that a late 1970, or 1971, final Beatle album *could* have, song-wise, easily matched any record they'd made to that point. But it's just hard to conceive of its actually existing in any plausible universe. They were ready to go their separate ways by about summer 1968, so staying together to record highly disparate songs in 1970/71 just couldn't have happened.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jun 18, 2014 17:49:19 GMT -5
Stavros, maybe I misunderstood what you were saying. You seemed to be equating 'radical politics' with John's 'oriental influence'. I think what you meant was 'Yoko's influence'.
Let's draw a distinction between Yoko and 'the orient', of which she is far, far from a typical representative!
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jun 18, 2014 18:58:43 GMT -5
Stavros, maybe I misunderstood what you were saying. You seemed to be equating 'radical politics' with John's 'oriental influence'. I think what you meant was 'Yoko's influence'. Let's draw a distinction between Yoko and 'the orient', of which she is far, far from a typical representative! I know this is going to set off a firestorm (as it did the last time), but does anyone really use that term anymore? It's as useless as "occidental." I won't go as far to say it is racist or anything like that, but it's a bygone term. Yoko is Japanese, not oriental. Aishwarya Rai is Indian, not oriental. Hassan Rouhani is Iranian, not oriental. I don't think very many scholarly texts or scholars or news outlets today use the term in regards to people.
|
|
kc
Beatle Freak
Posts: 1,085
|
Post by kc on Jun 18, 2014 19:50:38 GMT -5
I understand the refutations of this exercise by some posters, whether stated or implied. However, I think you miss the point. This is all about if things had been different; if there had not been a falling out amongst the Beatles over 1968-70, if they had been willing to persevere and compromise for the collective good. In an alternate world it doesn’t matter that in reality John was intent on leaving, or that George was fed up with not getting enough songs onto albums, or that Paul eventually went to the courts.
I am also dubious about the claims that the Beatles would only have had one more high quality album to offer the world. There seems to have been enough good solo material from the early 1970s for several. Most fans recognise John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band as a masterpiece and rank Imagine highly. Others maintain that All Things Must Pass is the greatest of all the solo albums. Many McCartney followers say Ram is his finest. Then there are the non-album singles and better portions of lesser albums to ponder. We can argue about the appropriateness of including one solo song or another in a Beatles release, but in our fantasy lyrics could have been adjusted, or minds could have been more open and tolerant.
On a personal level, my own fantasy is that the individual Beatles had possessed the required maturity and consideration for each other to have stayed around for a couple more years. I find it perfectly conceivable in that situation a further two or three strong albums could have been delivered. If that was the case and they then disbanded the band still would have gone out on top. Moreover, to me the cultural zeitgeist of much of the Western world of the late 1960s era did not really change until about 1973 (with the end of the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War). I like the idea that the Beatles could have seen that period out.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jun 18, 2014 20:14:16 GMT -5
Of course they all still had their solo albums. When John first heard ASS, he was sure it was about him.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Jun 18, 2014 21:08:34 GMT -5
I understand the refutations of this exercise by some posters, whether stated or implied. However, I think you miss the point. This is all about if things had been different; if there had not been a falling out amongst the Beatles over 1968-70, if they had been willing to persevere and compromise for the collective good. In an alternate world it doesn’t matter that in reality John was intent on leaving, or that George was fed up with not getting enough songs onto albums, or that Paul eventually went to the courts. I am also dubious about the claims that the Beatles would only have had one more high quality album to offer the world. There seems to have been enough good solo material from the early 1970s for several. Most fans recognise John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band as a masterpiece and rank Imagine highly. Others maintain that All Things Must Pass is the greatest of all the solo albums. Many McCartney followers say Ram is his finest. Then there are the non-album singles and better portions of lesser albums to ponder. We can argue about the appropriateness of including one solo song or another in a Beatles release, but in our fantasy lyrics could have been adjusted, or minds could have been more open and tolerant. On a personal level, my own fantasy is that the individual Beatles had possessed the required maturity and consideration for each other to have stayed around for a couple more years. I find it perfectly conceivable in that situation a further two or three strong albums could have been delivered. If that was the case and they then disbanded the band still would have gone out on top. Moreover, to me the cultural zeitgeist of much of the Western world of the late 1960s era did not really change until about 1973 (with the end of the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War). I like the idea that the Beatles could have seen that period out. I once posted a what if here, where Ed Sullivan convinced the Beatles to play live one more time. It was December of 1969, and they brought over Eric Clapton, Billy Preston and George Martin with an orchestra to perform songs from both Get Back and Abbey Road, with an oldie or two thrown in. Anyway, the show was recorded in stereo, released as an album and remained no. 1 for like a year. The band still split, but more amicable, with John and Paul appearing as solo artists on Sullivan's last show in 1973. Nicely put about the extended "era". My Slider Beatles page disappeared along with the host Beatlemoney, so I can't put up a link, but I had a formula for several Beatle collections in the 70s, where the premise was that they still did the solo records, then Apple with put together collections with the Beatles moniker.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 19, 2014 5:44:42 GMT -5
I understand the refutations of this exercise by some posters, whether stated or implied. However, I think you miss the point. This is all about if things had been different; if there had not been a falling out amongst the Beatles over 1968-70, if they had been willing to persevere and compromise for the collective good. In an alternate world it doesn’t matter that in reality John was intent on leaving, or that George was fed up with not getting enough songs onto albums, or that Paul eventually went to the courts. I am also dubious about the claims that the Beatles would only have had one more high quality album to offer the world. There seems to have been enough good solo material from the early 1970s for several. Most fans recognise John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band as a masterpiece and rank Imagine highly. Others maintain that All Things Must Pass is the greatest of all the solo albums. Many McCartney followers say Ram is his finest. Then there are the non-album singles and better portions of lesser albums to ponder. I think it's easy to figure that The Beatles could have continued with one or two more great albums in the early '70s, but this is only based on the evidence of the good quality of their individual solo efforts in those early years. But if you consider it more closely, would John have sung songs like "God" as he did on PLASTIC ONO BAND if they were Beatles songs? George's ALL THINGS MUST PASS is what it is at least partially due to the Phil Spector sound, and the wealth of material featured on its three records. Paul's RAM would not have been the same as Beatles songs - for one thing, they would be missing Linda on songs like "Uncle Albert". I don't think Ringo would be playing with The Jordanaires as he did on his country LP BEAUCOUPS OF BLUES, if he had sung those songs on a Beatles album. So what I'm saying is, these great solo songs were actually what they were at least partly because they WERE solo songs! Would "Another Day" have sounded the same as a Beatles recording? I don't think so. Even "Instant Karma" wouldn't have sounded the same. And I don't think all these good solo songs would automatically have sounded "even better if they were The Four Beatles". But at which point then would you be satisfied and feel that it's really time for The Beatles to quit? If they had quit in 1973, you might have been wishing that they had continued from 1974 through the 1980s, and "what if".
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 19, 2014 5:46:54 GMT -5
I know this is going to set off a firestorm (as it did the last time), but does anyone really use that term anymore? It's as useless as "occidental." I won't go as far to say it is racist or anything like that, but it's a bygone term. Yoko is Japanese, not oriental. Aishwarya Rai is Indian, not oriental. Hassan Rouhani is Iranian, not oriental. I don't think very many scholarly texts or scholars or news outlets today use the term in regards to people. This is so confusing. Gee whiz, I thought the Politically Correct term today was "Asian", which is safe? Wow.. we really must consult the "PC Handbook" to find out what is acceptable, or not. Tell me ... has the July 2014 edition for this month been printed yet...?
|
|
|
Post by stavros on Jun 19, 2014 13:32:46 GMT -5
Stavros, maybe I misunderstood what you were saying. You seemed to be equating 'radical politics' with John's 'oriental influence'. I think what you meant was 'Yoko's influence'. Let's draw a distinction between Yoko and 'the orient', of which she is far, far from a typical representative! Indeed I was referring to a passage in Dogget's book. The "Oriental Influence that shouldn't really be there" term was allegedly used by Paul when he was referring to the song "Across the Universe" to appear he was talking about the arrangement when it is a thinly disguised dig at Yoko. My point was that I doubt John would ever have got involved in the counter-culture had Yoko never appeared on the scene. I think I'd rather leave it there as I also think John may have become another rock-star victim without her. Back on topic - you could make the argument that the Beatles did give us their final piece Abbey Road, subconsciously knowing that their long and winding road had come to it's end. I think realistically though they couldn't have stayed relevant beyond the 1970s although John may still be alive today had things been different. We can all play about with a solo playlist and wonder what if? It is great fun at times as there is so much solo output with songs that we may never have heard had the Beatles carried on going. The best Beatles solo stuff ranks alongside anything the band produced together. There are also some real clunkers amongst the Beatles 1960s music that is ignored as well . But they went out at the top and perhaps this discussion wouldn't be taking place had they chose to stay together. We will never ever know.
|
|
kc
Beatle Freak
Posts: 1,085
|
Post by kc on Jun 19, 2014 18:20:46 GMT -5
But at which point then would you be satisfied and feel that it's really time for The Beatles to quit? If they had quit in 1973, you might have been wishing that they had continued from 1974 through the 1980s, and "what if". As we obviously cannot know what would have happened you just draw the line wherever it suits you. I've chosen some time in 1973. I am sure some people would prefer that John and George had survived until the present and the Beatles were still recording. Once again, this is fantasy, it's not meant seriously, it's for fun.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jun 19, 2014 18:55:08 GMT -5
I've read one of Doggett's books (about radical politics and the 60s/70s music counter-culture -- it was okay) but not this one.
I'm a bit dubious of quotes like the one you supply above. Does Doggett have a reference for it? Before passing judgment on Paul for saying something like this, I'd like to know if he actually said it. Bit of a sad thing if he did.
(I think it's normal for people of a certain vintage to continue to use the word 'oriental' -- my Grandma, at 85, still uses it to describe where I live. And, as the word is purely geographically descriptive -- dividing the west/east hemispheres into the Occident and the Orient -- there's nothing negative or objectifying about it, semantically-speaking. Therefore there is no logical reason not to use it, unless the people it describes object to it, and I've never heard anyone do so. The word has simply fallen out of fashion, and the reason some people consider it borderline 'negative' is because we associate with the WWII era when whites were casually and openly racist towards E. Asians. But of course, that doesn't mean the word itself needs to carry a stigma into today. That matter can be decided sociologically, by natural linguistic process. I'd say the jury is still out on the word 'oriental' -- I wouldn't be surprised if it makes a comeback!)
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jun 19, 2014 19:06:47 GMT -5
I know this is going to set off a firestorm (as it did the last time), but does anyone really use that term anymore? It's as useless as "occidental." I won't go as far to say it is racist or anything like that, but it's a bygone term. Yoko is Japanese, not oriental. Aishwarya Rai is Indian, not oriental. Hassan Rouhani is Iranian, not oriental. I don't think very many scholarly texts or scholars or news outlets today use the term in regards to people. This is so confusing. Gee whiz, I thought the Politically Correct term today was "Asian", which is safe? Wow.. we really must consult the "PC Handbook" to find out what is acceptable, or not. Tell me ... has the July 2014 edition for this month been printed yet...? No need for the handbook. Just ask me.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jun 19, 2014 19:43:18 GMT -5
. . . And, as the word is purely geographically descriptive -- dividing the west/east hemispheres into the Occident and the Orient -- there's nothing negative or objectifying about it, semantically-speaking . . . "Purely geographically descriptive"? There are 5 themes of geography: location, place, region, movement, and human-land interaction. Of those, I can only think of region to be where "oriental" could be used, but I doubt that any geographer uses it. So, I agree that it is right to say it is a vernacular term, but that does not make it correct to use, like "colored," or "mongoloid." I'm not saying that people who use those words are racist. I grant that they may be of a time when those words were used as identifiers, with no animus behind them at all. But, now is now. Also, although any longitude line can mark the division between the east and west hemisphere (while ONLY the equator can divide north and south), it's the Prime Meridian that divides the east from the west hemisphere. So, I guess that makes most of Europe oriental, too.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Jun 20, 2014 3:49:48 GMT -5
As a matter of observation, I tend to see "oriental" used to indicate people of Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Thai, Vietnamese etc. origin, especially to distinguish them from "asian", people of Indian, Pakistani etc. origin. I have never seen the slightest suggestion that there is a pejorative element in using teh word "oriental."
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 20, 2014 5:15:27 GMT -5
but that does not make it correct to use, like "colored," or "mongoloid." I'm not saying that people who use those words are racist. I grant that they may be of a time when those words were used as identifiers, with no animus behind them at all. But, now is now. And yet, there is still the proud NAACP ("National Association For The Advancement Of COLORED People"). Yes, this PC Guidebook stuff gets absurd. Anyone have this week's edition, so none of us makes any unintentional mistakes?
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 20, 2014 5:19:04 GMT -5
No need for the handbook. Just ask me. But seriously, sayne, I'm not even sure you know for sure! That's why the PC Thing is so ridiculous. I recall one time where you told me that "black" was offensive to 'African-Americans'. We had some involved discussion on this. But I explained that black people do refer to themselves as 'black', just as they refer to whites as 'white'. There is even a show called "Positively Black".
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 20, 2014 5:23:56 GMT -5
The word has simply fallen out of fashion, and the reason some people consider it borderline 'negative' is because we associate with the WWII era when whites were casually and openly racist towards E. Asians. But of course, that doesn't mean the word itself needs to carry a stigma into today. That matter can be decided sociologically, by natural linguistic process. I'd say the jury is still out on the word 'oriental' -- I wouldn't be surprised if it makes a comeback!) This sounds so funny... "borderline negative"... "jury is still out"..."may make a comeback".... this stuff truly makes one's head spin! : Meanwhile, there's no problem referring to Caucasians as just plain old "whites".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2014 7:16:57 GMT -5
You're right, we never know. Better we know they ended it before their music deteriorated. The Beatles went out on a high with ABBEY ROAD, their final album. "The Beatles split in '69 and since then they've been doin' fine. And if that question doesn't cease, ain't nobody gonna get no peace". And the great solo stuff is great as it is, because it's solo. Who knows if much of it would have sounded as good as it did otherwise? That's part of the appeal, just as they stand. Full of inaccuracies this post Joe, but, i think you knew that when you wrote it. I'm not correcting it either, you'll need to read up on Beatles history to get it right.
|
|