If the Beatles split up in 1966...

Interesting analysis! I think that in the Anthology-series it was pointed out that for the first time in years there were no plans at all; no movie, no tour and no album... Their reunion in late '66 (I could be wrong) was thanks to the fact that John came up with "Strawberry Fields Forever".
I think Prog Rock would still evolve from the acid-influenced/album-centric '66 output. Maybe Brian Wilson was relieved of one of his burdens. George would tour with Ravi Shankar and team up with John McLaughlin in the late '60s. Ringo would become a session drummer with the odd solo-hit. John would publish his first novel in 1970, still put out the odd experimental album....

 

Interesting analysis! I think that in the Anthology-series it was pointed out that for the first time in years there were no plans at all; no movie, no tour and no album... Their reunion in late '66 (I could be wrong) was thanks to the fact that John came up with "Strawberry Fields Forever".
I think Prog Rock would still evolve from the acid-influenced/album-centric '66 output. Maybe Brian Wilson was relieved of one of his burdens. George would tour with Ravi Shankar and team up with John McLaughlin in the late '60s. Ringo would become a session drummer with the odd solo-hit. John would publish his first novel in 1970, still put out the odd experimental album....

 

Pink Floyd would have happened as Norman Smith left after Rubber Soul.

 

Wink wink, nudge nudge.
Was this man on to something?

 

Yellow Submarine would have been a ninety minute long episode of The Beatles, which I'm pretty sure meets The Geneva Convention's criteria of "torture".

 

What other episodes of 'The Beatles' are there?

 

Well, since John said that "Yoko saved me from a kind of death", it's more reasonable to presume he may have died earlier without having found her.

 

Exactly. Bizarre, right?

 

Many others wouldn't either, since PEPPER and beyond influenced so many of their non-Beatles favorites...

 

If that were the case, I wonder why Beatles fans don't mind John Lennon being "rude" himself, at times?

Sorry - the truth is, Yoko gets unfairly mistreated because she was an eccentric and unconventional Asian woman, who John fell in love with, and then had the "audacity" to dare to focus on his relationship more than being a Beatle John puppet for many of the selfish fans.

 

Well, she's also done many things over the years to endear herself to fans, like the maneuvering over songwriting credits, the mass marketing of John's drawings into note pads and coffee mugs, or the remastering of his solo albums. Writing off any criticism of her with the retort that she made Lennon happy is far too pat. To paraphrase Driving Miss Daisy, she's a real doodle.

 

Oh please. When you look at other deceased artists (take Elvis Presley for one) they have been waaaayy more grossly over-marketed, and their songs re-re-re-issued and remastered. In contrast, Yoko has actually done far less. I also think Yoko has wonderfully taken care of John's music and the handling of his legacy, and she has done right by the fans over the decades. She's been more forthcoming in giving us John's music rather than, say, Olivia and Dhani Harrison, who seem slower than 1931's molasses about sharing George's work with us. Of course, nobody bashes them (or any other people who handle other dead artist's estates) , even if they're doing the same as Yoko or worse ... because ... well, .... they're not Yoko. And of course, everyone must bash Yoko for anything and everything.

 

In terms of legacy and influence still huge. They had already set new records and new heights of artistic achievment. Obvioulsy we would have missed out on a lot of great music but in terms of where the rest of the major rock acts were heading I think we would have still had the progression that happened in the late 60's.

In 1966 Dylan had released his 3 seminal rock albums, BIABH, Highway 61 Revisited and Blonde on Blonde
Beach Boys released Pet Sounds - a big influence on a lot of the contempary rock acts of the time
The Who released A Quick One (containing the mini opera so Townshend was already thinking about 'concepts' and had been with the I'm a Boy single)

Cream had formed and released their first album thus arguably setting the template of the power trio and the 'hard rock' sound which became prevalent at the end of the 60's and the early 70's.

Psychedelica had begun and with it the so called 'mind-expanding' drug culture, for better or worse.

If the Beatles had split in 1966 all of this had already happened or was starting so the musical development of just these 4 acts I've mentioned above (and there are many, many more) was well underway.

In my own humble opinion what the Beatles really changed was the industry itself, they were artists who wrote their own songs and were starting to control their own destiny and they paved the way for all those who followed. In the process the Beatles did make mistakes, Brian Epstein made mistakes - but they were the pioneers and everyone who followed could learn from those mistakes but also all the stuff they got right. Spectacularly right.

Although when it comes to the money plenty of other acts made the same mistakes again and again...

 

Tomorrow Never Knows would have been one hell of a Swan song!

 

Legacy? Ever go to one of her "exhibitions" of mass-produced, overpriced lithographs of John's "rare" art, with sales associates eager for your credit card? I guess if Graceland is your metric, she's a real Mother Teresa.
I suspect the delay in George's unreleased music is more due the marketing geniuses at the labels and Apple than Olivia and Dhani, but we just love to take sides for our favorites and bad- mouth the others, don't we? I don't recall seeing an official George Harrison greeting card at Hallmark. Classy.
Oh please, yourself, and happy Thanksgiving.

 

I suspect it was intended to be at the time. They made up for it with The End.

 

What was their contractual situation then? Did they owe EMI any more records?

 

John always had complete faith and trust in Yoko's judgment (yes, I realize that befuddles many people, and that's okay because it's John's respect for her that matters), so I don't think he'd object to anything she's done, going by what the two of them did artistically together during the years John was alive.

And your analogy of Graceland is exactly my point -- does anyone slaughter Priscilla Presley, Lisa Marie, or whoever else has anything to do with Elvis? No, of course not. Now, honestly - can you imagine the rage and backlash if it was Yoko who'd opened up Graceland as a tourist attraction? (Or John's Dakota apartment)?

"Taking sides" has got nothing to do with it. I'm only restoring balance objectively; you say Yoko has done all these things to John's work... I'm just pointing out the extreme reverse in the Harrison Camp. And also I'll add that -- if Olivia was doing the exact same things as Yoko, nobody would have said a thing. -- And on the other hand, if Yoko was holding onto so much of John's work and hoarding it, then the fans would obviously be raking Yoko over the coals because she WASN'T sharing any of it with them. It's a double standard, and the woman cannot win.

You too.

 

Their contract expired in June 1966. Disastrous visit to Phillipines in July. At close of already contractually committed-to US tour, George declares "no longer a Beatle" in August. Previously announced third film never made. Oldies album out in November. Contract renewed in January 1967.
Interesting timing!

 

you beat me to it, dagnabbit!

 

No...it was Ian Paice not Moonie.

John would've released some incredible solo stuff in the next few yrs. if they would've stopped in 66.

 

Indeed, a good time to split then if their contractual obligations were done. As sucessful as they had been to that point I wonder how much real money they had all earned by then? Were they all in a position to maintain their current lifestyle without the safety net of the Beatles? Back then it probably wasn't anticipated that the music would have the lifespan that it went onto achieve.

 

All true (I agree '66 was their peak as a collective force), but in the end the only misstep to me was releasing LIT after AB. (And not having George Martin produce their entire output.)

 

I actually think Pepper's influence was detrimental to other groups. The Byrd's Artifical Energy being my own personal case-in-point. Yeeeeech. It's sickening how instantaneously other bands jumped into horns (and misappropriated them) after Pepper. Ugh.