Supposing they had stopped with Revolver...??

The Blitzkreigs may not have caught on internationally.

 

Why would Paul be jealous of its success?

Why would George wait till '69 to release all this music? Surely there would be no ATMP, those songs would be split onto other albums. Would those songs even sound the same given he may not even know Spector.

 

1. Like the scorpion that stings the frog, it's his nature.

2. Whether George knew Phil Spector at that time is not an issue. Of course George knew of Spector. That would be enough to make him want to record an album with the legendary producer.
Why George wait till '69? As you know George was the one most fed up with the whole Beatles/music bizz thing. He thus would have taken a break from the whole merry go round. Gone into a type of seclusion as he was wont to do. Emerge two and a half years later with a big masterwork called "All Things Must Pass."

 

Based on what?

There is no evidence he was jealous of ATMP success in our reality, why would he jealous of it in your fictonal one?

Would Phil want to work with George Harrison pre '66?

Does not always work like that. Would he have the same financial support to assemble Spector, the vast array of talent on the album and the 6 months it took if he had been out of work for two and a half years?

Would he have even written much of that work? His quality in songwriting seemed to have dipped once he was no longer with the other Beatles. Maybe their influence and seeking to impress them helped him, without that who knows if he would have ever reached those heights.

 

I doubt it. He was a Beatle, but he was very much an economy-class Beatle. Phil didn't work with Gene Clark, or Bill Wyman, or Dennis Wilson.

All three songwriting Beatles suffered dips in songwriting quality post-1971, with Paul getting a creative spurt in 1973, John in '74, etc. Highly doubtful that George would have gone from needing help with Taxman to ATMP-level quality in the next year...and by '69-70, he would have been a has-been without a big LP--but it took him those three years after Revolver to assemble the songs for one. An LP of ragas in 1967 would've been a niche release at best.

 

1. I've not come across any Paul jealous remarks over "All Things Must Pass" either, but what I am basing Paul jealousy on is...Paul jealousy! The guy was a control freak, no one could exceed him. He plays the nice, magnanimous guy nowadays, but back then he was a beast. And that's not a fiction. That's reality.

2. Not saying "pre-'66. I'm saying that when George was ready to begin his album (late '68) why exactly wouldn't Phil Spector work with him? That's a prize project. An interesting assignment. Perhaps George sent him some demos of those brilliant tunes on "All Things Must Pass." And not just demos of "All Things Must Pass" songs. You think anybody hearing that material would say "No" to producing that project? And remember, "Something" does not yet exist in this thread's scenario. George still has that one in his pocket and don't you think Phil Spector upon hearing it would love to work on a song of that quality? I really don't like 'Something," but, man, I sure would love to hear what Spector could have done with that song.

3. What? You say George's quality in songwriting dipped when not with The Beatles? Come on. George's songs with The Beatles were nothing at all special. But his solo songs are his masterpieces. Without John and Paul in the room, George found his voice and his songwriting really took off.

 

When I think of my top-20 Beatles songs, those I deem to be the best they ever made :

A Day in the Life
Because
Blackbird
Dear Prudence
Eleanor Rigby
Fixing a Hole
Fool on the Hill
Got to Get you Into my Life
Help!
Hey Jude
I Should Have Known Better
It's all too Much
Norwegian Wood
Nowhere Man
Penny Lane
Rain
Something
Strawberry Fields Forever
With a Little Help From my Friends
Yesterday


.. only 8 (in red) - less than half - would exist. I doubt I'd consider the Beatles to be anywhere near as important a band if such was the case. But, music would have changed very little outside of the fact that those great songs recorded post-Revolver might not exist, or at the least, in some other variation, perhaps as solo-tracks quite different from what we got. I do not think the culture or music would have been impacted greatly by the absence of Beatles after '66. The most important innovations in music happened entirely without their influence and would have still happened anyway.

 

What's your definition of something that has, "meaning"?