what if?
Brother Joe says I have spoken or written in the past about what the Beatles might have sounded like had they continued into the 70's and even the 80's. I'm not sure I remember doing this, and it presupposes a lot of things, not least of which is that John Lennon hadn't died. But it is an interesting suggestion so I'll take a whack at it.
As I mentioned on Joe's blog, it's not too much of a stretch to imagine what the next couple of albums after Let It Be and Abbey Road might have sounded like; just take the best of the band members' solo work and construct your own Beatles albums, like I did there.
A book Tracey got me for Christmas a couple of years ago had a chapter devoted to this very subject. In that writer's opinion, the passing years would not have been kind to them, either in the type of material they would have produced or public acceptance of it. In other words, a decline would almost have inevitably set in, and while the Beatles would almost certainly have continued to be very popular, the era of instant #1 albums and singles would have come to an end.
I would agree with at least the last part of that theory. In fact, it was happening already, to a degree, just before they split up. While their last album and single in the US shot to the top of the charts as always before, in England, they were fading, if only slightly. 'Let It Be,' (the single) failed to hit the top, and 'Something/Come Together' only made it to #4. To say 'only' shows just how high expectations for the band had become.
The writer went on to speculate that the Beatles would have ended up sounding like ELO or Supertramp. It's easy to buy into this, especially since Jeff Lynne of ELO has worked with both McCartney and Harrison and produced the two 'new' tracks on the Beatles' Anthology series in 1995, which indeed bore many of the hallmarks of ELO.
But had the Beatles somehow, miraculously, stayed together, I think the answer lies elsewhere. The only realistic possibility it seems to me would have been much broader collaboration with other musicians than had been the case in the past. They had tried it on occasion, with Eric Clapton on the White Album, and Billy Preston on the Let It Be sessions, and particularly the single 'Get Back' which actually was credited to 'The Beatles and Billy Preston,' something that shocked a lot of people. But that was the direction they were going. And if you read some of the transcripts of conversations among the four (of which hundreds of hours exist) from Let It Be, it's clear solo work was inevitable. At the same time, John and George spoke of 'preserving' the Beatles.
So what might have worked would have a been a series of albums, by what perhaps could have been called 'The Beatles and Friends,' one issued every couple of years or so. You could have had two or three cuts by the Beatles themselves, enough again to 'preserve' the band and the integrity of the project, and then the rest of the cuts would be various permutations of the group and outside musicians. For instance, one track could feature just John and Ringo and perhaps Klaus Voorman on bass, as was the case on some of Lennon's early solo work. Another would be a teaming of George, Eric Clapton and Billy Preston. Paul might choose to work with Denny Laine or by himself. Other potential collaborators would include Harry Nilsson, Jim Keltner, Jesse Ed Davis, Elephant's Memory, Badfinger, and after that, who knows? David Bowie or Bob Dylan?
In my opinion, even if you could somehow magically take away all the bad feelings surrounding the break-up, John Lennon would never have agreed to stay in a band sounding like ELO or Supertramp that just cranked out hit singles, no matter how catchy or popular they might be. Paul, George, and Ringo, maybe. It wasn't Lennon's cup of tea; he'd been there, done that, and wanted to move on. He might, however, have gone along with 'The Beatles and Friends.'
As I mentioned on Joe's blog, it's not too much of a stretch to imagine what the next couple of albums after Let It Be and Abbey Road might have sounded like; just take the best of the band members' solo work and construct your own Beatles albums, like I did there.
A book Tracey got me for Christmas a couple of years ago had a chapter devoted to this very subject. In that writer's opinion, the passing years would not have been kind to them, either in the type of material they would have produced or public acceptance of it. In other words, a decline would almost have inevitably set in, and while the Beatles would almost certainly have continued to be very popular, the era of instant #1 albums and singles would have come to an end.
I would agree with at least the last part of that theory. In fact, it was happening already, to a degree, just before they split up. While their last album and single in the US shot to the top of the charts as always before, in England, they were fading, if only slightly. 'Let It Be,' (the single) failed to hit the top, and 'Something/Come Together' only made it to #4. To say 'only' shows just how high expectations for the band had become.
The writer went on to speculate that the Beatles would have ended up sounding like ELO or Supertramp. It's easy to buy into this, especially since Jeff Lynne of ELO has worked with both McCartney and Harrison and produced the two 'new' tracks on the Beatles' Anthology series in 1995, which indeed bore many of the hallmarks of ELO.
But had the Beatles somehow, miraculously, stayed together, I think the answer lies elsewhere. The only realistic possibility it seems to me would have been much broader collaboration with other musicians than had been the case in the past. They had tried it on occasion, with Eric Clapton on the White Album, and Billy Preston on the Let It Be sessions, and particularly the single 'Get Back' which actually was credited to 'The Beatles and Billy Preston,' something that shocked a lot of people. But that was the direction they were going. And if you read some of the transcripts of conversations among the four (of which hundreds of hours exist) from Let It Be, it's clear solo work was inevitable. At the same time, John and George spoke of 'preserving' the Beatles.
So what might have worked would have a been a series of albums, by what perhaps could have been called 'The Beatles and Friends,' one issued every couple of years or so. You could have had two or three cuts by the Beatles themselves, enough again to 'preserve' the band and the integrity of the project, and then the rest of the cuts would be various permutations of the group and outside musicians. For instance, one track could feature just John and Ringo and perhaps Klaus Voorman on bass, as was the case on some of Lennon's early solo work. Another would be a teaming of George, Eric Clapton and Billy Preston. Paul might choose to work with Denny Laine or by himself. Other potential collaborators would include Harry Nilsson, Jim Keltner, Jesse Ed Davis, Elephant's Memory, Badfinger, and after that, who knows? David Bowie or Bob Dylan?
In my opinion, even if you could somehow magically take away all the bad feelings surrounding the break-up, John Lennon would never have agreed to stay in a band sounding like ELO or Supertramp that just cranked out hit singles, no matter how catchy or popular they might be. Paul, George, and Ringo, maybe. It wasn't Lennon's cup of tea; he'd been there, done that, and wanted to move on. He might, however, have gone along with 'The Beatles and Friends.'
posted by gbj at 4:13 PM
1 Comments:
There are so many things to take into consideration. If none of the bad stuff had happened, and they were all happy to be together still... who knows?
Jeff Lynne idolized Lennon and his favorite song of all time was/is 'I Am The Walrus.' Which is easy to believe when you listen to ELO.
George Martin, their producer, has said that he wished Lennon had let him produce the 'Imagine' album. I wish he had too. It's a great album but if Martin had produced it, it would have been right up there I think with the Beatles material.
I think 'Imagine' (the album) and McCartney's 'Band On The Run' were the closest any of them came to making a Beatles album. Though George's 'All Things Must Pass' was awfully good too.
Post a Comment
<< Home