I just realized that the Beatles' last album "Let It Be" was released the year that I was born. 35 years ago! So, it got me thinking;

If they hadn't broken up, and if John Lennon hadn't died...would they have been able to retain their relevance and edge during those wacky musical times of my youth...the 1980's?

We know that Lennon was poised for a "comeback" in '80...but then think about the fluff that we got from Ringo and even Sir Paul ("Spies Like Us" anyone?).

But with the group intact...would another "Sgt. Pepper" have been made...and would it have gotten airplay? Or would they have been relegated to fluff and nostalgic "elevator music"?

I suppose they would have fared about as well as the Rolling Stones did in the 80's.

Well, they didn't manage to survive the 70s...

Cloudbuster said:

Cheek said:

Cloudbuster said:

Hi Johnny!

Cheek said:

He can't talk, he's dead.

Cloudbuster said:

I'm callin' Yoko!!!

I wonder if they would have jumped on the disco bandwagon in the late 70s? could you imagine a Beatles disco album? lol

Cloudbuster said:

I'm listening to the Apple Rooftop concert right now.


[Edited 1/27/06 3:52am]

I think they would have fared better than the Stones, because they always had better songs coz of Lennon... I think the best of Lennon's 80s output would have somehow channeled into an 80s Beatles to keep them going... but I'm glad that parallel universe didn't happen in a sense, because we most likely wouldn't have an Imagine otherwise... (song and the album)


.
[Edited 1/27/06 5:05am]

mrDespues said:

Lennon's 80's output? That's a bit of a stretch..

I think the Beatles would've fared better in the 80s than the Stones. And that's based on notoriety alone. The Beatles are considered patriarchs in the music industry. So any cd released would've been a hit. Of course, the same holds true for the Stones. They release albums that sell on the basis of who they are...When was their last hit? Start Me Up? Harlem Shuffle?

brothaluv said:

But that's a bit of an unfair comparison..
By the 70's the beatles were no more
so they never had the chance 2 get 2
the part where they would start
recycling their own past glories.

& if Macca's stuff is anything 2 go by
I'd say the Beatles could have evolved
in2 something downright cheesy..

they didnt survive the 60s, and by the time Lennon released his masterpiece (1970), the dream was already over.

I really belive that by the '80s the Beatles would have fallen very far from their peak. It's pretty inconceivable to think that they could have maintained great songwriting for 25 years. I love the Beatles but the fact that they broke up is a big part of their appeal. They never made terrible music. But over a long span of time I think they would have made many bad songs/albums.

As others have pointed out by the '80s the three surviving Beatles weren't exactly innovators. They were basically nostalia acts who had the odd hit.

The Beatles' legacy would definitely not be the same if they'd stayed together. I'd like to see what would have happened, but the fact that they were still on top when they broke up builds the mythology.

Someone had an interesting idea once of creating "new" Beatles albums with the best of the solo stuff. So in 1970 you get something like

The Beatles: McPlastic Things Must Journey (I forget Ringo's album, Beaucoup of Blues or Sentimental Journey?)

Mother
My Sweet Lord
Working Class Hero
Maybe I'm Amazed
Wah Wah
What is Life
Isolation
Well Well Well
Junk
Isn't it a Pity

Or something.

.interesting question.

from what i can gather of their music i'm thinking more along the lines of say...

The Talking Heads or Devo..

something New-Wave.

heck if i know.

rialb said:

I concur

brothaluv said:

I pretty much agree, but after the breakup, each had to carry whole albums. If each only contributed a few songs and they helped each other out, the albums might have still been very strong.

I like to think they would have delivered an "Actung Yoko" album

I could just see the walrus becoming the fly.

PurpleJedi said:

It's hard to say. The whole music scene changed a lot. Perhaps if they'd released an album with Lennon and McCartney doing most of the songwriting, They would've had a chance.

They would had one or two hits in the 80's, but you know they would have had a massive revival in the late 90's. Beatles Unplugged, Storytellers: The Beatles. They would have moved to Arista by then. Clive Davis would be pimpin' the "comeback" album, with special guests, Cheryl Crow, Dave Matthews, the Edge, and others. Yoko and John would have divorced. Critics in 2006 would all agree that Lennon did some of his best work during this era.

That's how I see it.

Martinelli said:

dang you know what i mean... i wrote that late last night....

So I posed this question to my wife, and she is confident that they certainly WOULD have survived the '80s and had numerous hits.

"The Beatles had a knack for being at the leading edge of music" is what she said, so if The Rolling Stones have managed to survive, then The Beatles would have THRIVED.

The question is: would they have gone "New Wave" or "Punk"...?

Oddly enough, they would have been considered too corny to be signed. That says something, nowadays.

.
[Edited 1/29/06 20:55pm]

And answering the question of how their music would sound.. I dont think it would have projected the path of the 3 remaining Beatles.. I think when they were together they had a much higher standard than what they would bring to the table if one wasnt there... and I stress this about John & Paul.

Really. What's so great about them? I don't get it.

DynamicSavior said:

HA...

Thats not a question to be answered in words.. You hear it, learn it, and understand it.. and if that didnt help..


your just one of "those"


(Beatle snob here... yes, a tad bit of a little know it all about them due to extensive (studyin if u wanna call it that))..



[Edited 1/29/06 22:17pm]