Had the Beatles continued after '69, what would have been their niche?

I have a feeling they were individualistic around Help! already, when John had his "fat Elvis" period, or later after Candlestick Park when George said he's not a Beatle anymore.^^

 

Didn't John say that if the Beatles continued into the 1970s they would have sounded like ELO? I seem to recall Jeff Lynne taking great pride in that comment.

 

Looks like they would heavily copy other people's music styles then.^^

 

"The Greatest Beatles Rivals In The World"

 

THIS!

 

His first official drum solo on an album (after 'The End')?

 

A 'Hey Jude' remake would be funny, 20 minutes version, 15 minutes of it contain only that "Nah-Nah-Nah" coda but in a more uptempo danceble style.^^

 

I think the mistake people are making is (ironically) looking towards their solo output for answers here, but I think that ultimately leads down the wrong path.

Whatever made the Beatles, "The Beatles" was a synergy -even though I hate that word- of four guys. Even if the songs that appeared on solo albums through, say, '73, made an appearance, they would not have been the versions we know today. Lennon/McCartney, though not a functioning partnership as it was in the old days, still managed to create product that somehow had both of their stamps on it. George and Ringo benefited from the others' input on their material as they also influenced the sound with their musicianship.

Would it have gotten "rootsy'? Perhaps. Would it have been the slick masterpiece that Abbey Road was? Maybe...? Or perhaps they would have retrenched, and come up with something entirely different. Remember, these are the guys that never put out an album that sounded like the previous.

My theory is that we would have seen a Fleetwood Mac-type situation emerge with the primary 3 songwriters using their solo projects as an indulgence outlet while bringing the A material to the band. That's not to say we couldn't see a solo album succeed (like Bella Donna did) but I think there would have been a pressure to bring their best to compete with the others.

That's structural though, no assumptions on the sound. That to me is going to remain one of the fun "what ifs" of music.

 

1979: Britpop
1980: Techno/Trance
1981: Dubstep
1982: back-to-roots 2 (Reggae revival^^)
1983: breakup

 

I think it may have lessoned their overall historical impact, as they age with the times their irrelevance artistically may become obvious as they became stuck in one genre and stylistically repetitive like many solo artist born out of bands from that period. I'd like to think maybe they'd return to performing and releasing albums less frequently but eventually solo projects would take over with reunion tours every 8-10 years.

 

With those 13 tunes I've mentioned, I'll try to cut out a late '69-early '70 album:

The Beatles - Thirteen
Side A
1. Gimme Some Truth
2. All Things Must Pass
3. Every Night
4. Oh My Love
5. Junk
6. Isn't It A Pity?
Side B
1. Another Day
2. Jealous Guy
3. Let It Down
4. Teddy Boy
5. Look At Me
6. The Back Seat of My Car

Paul with 5 tunes, John with 4, George with 3 (being generous with the poor guy, he deserved best!) with "The Art of Dying" as a non-album b-side. Named so because not counting YS or any compilation it is their 13th studio UK LP. Americans are confused.

 

Right, they better should had done an album/video for MTV Unplugged.

 

I know John's and Paul's solo albums, a bit less of George's material and nearly nothing about Ringo's solo recordings (I only own his compilation from Apple). I know, I'm (a big but) bad Beatles fan.^^

 

Honestly I would think they would sound more of an ELO / Slade fusion in the 1970s. *Sigh* If we only could discover a parallel world like this.^^

 

I remember an interview of John in 1974 during his "lost weekend" (with Bob Harris), he had thoughts about a reunion... A shame it was never realized.

 

And for a late '70 release a mix of POB, "Maybe I'm Amazed" + RAM, ATMP and "It Don't Come Easy". A man can only dream...

 

They would have gone for a sound like Blue Cheer (with extra guitar of course) but with Yoko as the lead singer

 

They would have seen other acts who had far more acrimony and drama and less to offer creatively, cash in. I think that would've got them back together to reclaim the crown, although the one I would most likely stay away would be George. Any serious thoughts of Linda and/or Yoko being involved, would be a non-starter.

 

Since '68 they were pretty well doing stuff individually anyways, so you could take their solo stuff and put them on an album and call it The Beatles!

 

They would have started a football team and played in the English top tier. Just the four of them. John would have been striker. He'd probably collect a few yellow cards - but never for diving. Paul would have been an attacking midfielder (from the left side), scoring as often as John. He would also play any other position if required. George would have been a strong central defender with the ability to join the attack and score a goal when you least expect it. And Ringo would have been the steadiest keeper the game has ever seen, never ever letting anything get past him.

 

They would have gone disco. Tight satin trousers and Bee Gees falsetto!

 

It is quite possible or even likely that they would have added a new member to the group. They wanted Clapton and they wanted Preston, maybe even more - aside from POB, both John and George (and even Ringo) made large sounding records for the first few years of the 1970's.

Also, I seriously doubt that George Martin would have been willing to do any more sessions with the band.

 

Considering that they continued into 1970, their 1970 album should provide a clue.

 

I would imagine they would continue to record individually, transitioning into music production of other artists (like many actors who go into directing in the twilight of their careers).

 

Possibly the reason why Paul, George and Ringo had chosen Jeff Lynne as the producer of their new tracks for the Anthology project.