What sort of music do you think they would be playing? Would they 'go disco' like the Bee Gees? Or continue making slow ballads like their later work? Would their work sound like Paul McCartney solo or more experimental? It would be kinda interest to speculate...but alas, that may have ruined their credibility.

I think The Beatles stopped at the right time... while they were big, and therefore they are still a legend today.  Regardless of what kind of music they would have played, I think they would have lost popularity either way.  If they continued to play the same kinds of music, it would have been "dated", and if they tried to change their style, it wouldn't suit them.

Just like what happened to Michael Jackson.  He was so big with the Thriller album, and I think he should have stopped after that.  I think he would have been remembered in a much better way if he had.

i think they would have been more experimental. they would have been a prog rock band but with catchy pop tunes. but ultimatly, they would have broken up, their egos were big as it is in 1970, they wouldn't have lasted long.

I think The Beatles stopped at the right time... while they were big, and therefore they are still a legend today.  Regardless of what kind of music they would have played, I think they would have lost popularity either way.  If they continued to play the same kinds of music, it would have been "dated", and if they tried to change their style, it wouldn't suit them.

Just like what happened to Michael Jackson.  He was so big with the Thriller album, and I think he should have stopped after that.  I think he would have been remembered in a much better way if he had.



I agree. All of them were moving in their own direction and it just wouldn't work because each one would want the band to go in a different way. (Of course that is what broke them up in the first place.)




Cat

I think we got a sample of what might have happened when "Free As A Bird" and "Real Life" were released. ::)

No need to speculate, they wouldn't have stayed together.  Unlike alot of them they were individuals that
came together to make a whole, but they were more than the sum of their parts.  They were able to stand individually. They were too talented to remain stagnant, and that is what most of these bands have done, rehashed and stagnated.

If they had stayed together and turned to playing Disco  :o ...The world would've most certainly ended ;D ;)

After they broke up and all pursued solo careers, none of them achieved anywhere near the success of the Beatles'. So I suppose that says something about the band and how they worked together.

I love hypothetical questions!

In any event, I think it's very possible they could've changed with the times, because in effect, they already had. Their first couple albums were pseudo-50's pop/rock, then their "pop" period (which Beatlemania is most associated with: 1964/65, and maybe a little bit of '66) ended, and they started doing more 'mature' music, such as Rubber Soul.

(Although that's probably one of my least favorite Beatles albums - mainly for the lack of upbeat and/or more catchy tunes, I do give them credit there for stretching out.)

Revolver started their move into experimental and classic rock, which they shelled out from 1967-70. By the very end of their career, I thought they mixed 70's styled rockers ("Get Back") with pretty, soft ballads ("Long and Winding Road") along with more experimental stuff ("Across the Universe") and mid-tempo ballads ("Let it Be").

So, if they stayed together, their stuff up to 1975 or so probably would've sounded alot like Paul McCartney's new band, Wings, as well as Ringo's solo album. In the latter half of the 70's, I could see them doing some dance tunes, but not full-on Disco. Probably a mix of dance and classic rock.

In the 80's, they probably would've added some synthesizers to their music, but without becoming Duran Duran (LOL). Because they always were a visual band (heck, A Hard Day's Night could be the proto-type for music videos) they probably would've gotten on MTV a bit too. For some reason, I envision them as sounding like a cross of Tom Petty, the Police, and the Clash, but more retro.

After that, it's too hard to predict.

However, all this does raise a point - they always inspired other bands while creating their own music, so possibly if they kept making albums, those subsequent post-1970 albums would've helped inspire other bands in some way they wouldn't otherwise have been. In that case, maybe music would've been somewhat different after the 60's than it was in "our" universe. ;)

It's been said by a few critics that their style would have become rather similar to ELO's early stuff (circa 1971-72)...

Indeed, that was the main concept of ELO in their early days - to continue where 'Sergeant Pepper' left off...

Nonetheless, some interesting thoughts here...

the beatles had a hit in '96 I believe

the beatles had a hit in '96 I believe



What was the hit? ???

Real Love

Real Love



So SH,this was before George Harrison passed away?

If they had stayed together and turned to playing Disco  :o ...The world would've most certainly ended ;D ;)



disco doesn't sound like The Beatles flavor

disco doesn't sound like The Beatles flavor



the same could be said for early Bee Gees, and look what happened to them ;)

What if The Beatles had a country sound to their music? ???

I truly loved the Beatles as millions of people did.  They had an impact on the world that music will never see again.  For that reason I'm glad that they quit when they did rather than grow creatively stale and sink to the same level as everyone that was chasing them. For years they set the standard and everyone else spent their time trying to emulate them.  Without them there would've been no Zeppelin, Pink Floyd and the Stones probably never would've broken out of the bar gig level.  Let's face it.  How many bands ever had to quit touring because they couldn't hear themselves?  How many bands have had their material covered by everyone from country artists to Frank Sinatra?  All of this in 8 short years of recording.  Also studio and recording techniqes that are taken for granted today were pioneered by them and their genius producer George Martin.  I'd hate to think where music would've gone without them.  One last thing, no band in history ever inspired millions of kids to go out and buy guitars and other musical instruments.  I was one of those.  Fender,  Gibson  and Ludwig drums owed them a debt that they can never repay.

I truly loved the Beatles as millions of people did. They had an impact on the world that music will never see again. For that reason I'm glad that they quit when they did rather than grow creatively stale and sink to the same level as everyone that was chasing them. For years they set the standard and everyone else spent their time trying to emulate them. Without them there would've been no Zeppelin, Pink Floyd and the Stones probably never would've broken out of the bar gig level. Let's face it. How many bands ever had to quit touring because they couldn't hear themselves? How many bands have had their material covered by everyone from country artists to Frank Sinatra? All of this in 8 short years of recording. Also studio and recording techniqes that are taken for granted today were pioneered by them and their genius producer George Martin. I'd hate to think where music would've gone without them. One last thing, no band in history ever inspired millions of kids to go out and buy guitars and other musical instruments. I was one of those. Fender, Gibson and Ludwig drums owed them a debt that they can never repay.


Well said, man. And they continue to inspire another generation. I was born in '88, but I grew up on the Beatles. I watched Yellow Submarine countless times as a little kid.

And perhaps, just perhaps, they can still have a positive effect into the future. Unfortunately, I have no musical talent. But perhaps there are people my age out there who have musical talent, who also grew up on their music, and their disgust(like mine) at the poor quality of today's music will inspire them to get out there and revolutionize music again.

Well said, man. And they continue to inspire another generation. I was born in '88, but I grew up on the Beatles. I watched Yellow Submarine countless times as a little kid.

And perhaps, just perhaps, they can still have a positive effect into the future. Unfortunately, I have no musical talent. But perhaps there are people my age out there who have musical talent, who also grew up on their music, and their disgust(like mine) at the poor quality of today's music will inspire them to get out there and revolutionize music again.
:)      I sure hope that you're right brother about today's generation revolutionizing music again.  It's long overdue.  I think the proof is in the fact that folks your age still admire the Beatles.  Their music will be going around 100 years from now.  What group today will be remembered 20 years from now?  The 60's were a time that was truly unparalleled in many ways.  So much change musically and socially.  Some good and some bad.  Modern day radio is one of the chief culprits too.  Everything is categorized today.  Listening to a station that plays one kind of music is like going to the Outback Steakhouse and eating a cheeseburger every time.  When I grew up the best radio stations played a mix of everything and there was a lot of different stuff that was good during that period.  So we got a lot of influences and that translated to better musicianship skills, more creative songwriting and such.  Who plays an acoustic guitar like James Taylor or Leo Kottke or Willis Alan Ramsey with all the intricate phrasing and tones today?  It's a dying art but when you find guys that can it's still unbelievably popular. Same for Clapton, Jeff Beck and Hendrix.  So many of the younger generation are making videos after learning three chords.  Everything is getting dumbed down and that translates to lame music and mediocre skills.  The best playing from younger folks today that I hear is from the bluegrass arena.  Groups like Nickel Creek and a few others. Those kids are raised on musical instruments.

Thought it might be interesting to re-new this topic, see what ppl think...

Al has an interesting point.  Part of the reason that country and hip-hop are so big right now is that pop or rock music haven't had a new idea in over 20 years.  We need some new directions.

We would all like to think the Beatles would have continued to be dominant had they stayed together, but in fact they were already fading.  All had successful solo careers, so I think it worked out in the end, in a world-historical way.

John would have tried to hold some political office in NY and change the rules and win and become uncoltrollably annoying.

...they would be playing a Las Vegas lounge every other Saturday... ::)

*Shudder*

I, of course, think the Beatles and their music had no peer (though musically they aren't my favourite band), but I wasn't so keen on their solo careers with the exception of early John Lennon (pretty much anything in the 'Imagine', 'Plastic Ono Band' album). I know many fans will disagree with me vehemently, but I think Paul McCartney's work with Wings was a real tail-off endings. You can hardly compare, 'Maybe I'm Amazed' with 'Fool on the Hill' or 'Long and Winding Road'.

Come to think of it, alot of artists who were brilliant in the 60s really took a nose-dive in the 70s (I don't think I have to name any). So maybe it is a good thing they called it a day.

I don't think The Beatles could have carried on - George Harrison was far too talented to play second fiddle to Lennon and McCartney. If they hadn't split up when they did I think he would have left anyway.

i hate to play the blame-yoko game but seriously, if she hadn't have come along, maybe they'd have stayed together! i like to think so.

a lot of their solo stuff is very beatles-y. i'd have loved to hear something like "imagine" with the fuller beatles orchestration. and "bluebird" and "uncle albert/admiral halsey" are both very beatles-y, a lot of the uninitiated think those ARE beatles songs.

that said, later wings actually seems to have a disco seasoning to it. "silly love songs" and "with a little luck." i don't see john standing for that stuff.

...they would be playing a Las Vegas lounge every other Saturday... ::)



I don't so. They would probably go out on tour with the Rolling Stones.




Cat

I think, had the Beatles not broken up, that the music they wouldve come out with wouldve sounded more like a cross between Wings, The Who (in the 1970's) with a little bit of solo Lennon. I doubt very much they wouldve turned to disco, but they definately couldve went new wave.I mean, Paul was such an innovator, more so than John IMO, that he wouldve seen it coming and moved the band in that direction. You can kind of see this in some of Wings later albums. I also think George and Ringo wouldve had more of an input in the writing of the music during the later 1970's.

Personally, though, while I wouldve loved to have seen the Beatles in concert (I have seen Paul (1978/79 and 1993) and John (sometime in the late 70's, cant really remember as I was little), I think that they ended at the right time.



AN

I don't so. They would probably go out on tour with the Rolling Stones.




Cat


Impossible! The Stones play rock and roll. The Beatles played elevator music with words.... :P

I think it was mainly John Lennon's doing (not blaming him) that led to the breakup. I think he was a dynamic, restless character...always changing, he found he wasn't accomplishing what he wanted with the Beatles (they were meaning less and less to him) and so split. Of course, Yoko may have had alot to do with it, but she can hardly be blamed as the cause of the breakup.

they still had some good material left in them and could've stayed together for at least 2-3 GREAT albums. Just look at the stuff Harrison, Lennon, and MacCartney released in the aftermath of the breakup. All those songs would've been Beatles songs. Baby I'm Amazed, Imagine, Instant Karma, My Sweet Lord etc etc. A compilation of the best Beatles solo stuff from 1970-1974 is already better than Abby Road.

Impossible! The Stones play rock and roll. The Beatles played elevator music with words.... :P


I disagree. While some of the Beatles music may be concidered "elevator" music (how many times have we heard "Yesterday" in an elevator?  ::) ) some you would NEVER hear in an elevator, like "Revolution", "Come Together" "My Guitar Gently Weeps" "Helter Skelter" etc.



Cat

I always hear 'Come Together' on the radio (I've never heard music in an elevator, so can't vouch for that one), at the shopping centre.etc, but not Revolution No. 1 (one of my favourite tunes). But no, save for John Lennon (songs like 'Imagine' and 'Jealous' guy would be in the upper echelons of the Beatles' catalogue), there's no way that the solo stuff even compares to the Beatles' peak period of 1965-1970 (pre-65 was also very good). Even PaulMcCartney and Wings (must admit, never been a fan of Sir. Paul's solo stuf either) can't compare.

Elevator music with words?  That's a rather uninformed thing to say.  Well, I guess you're definitely not a fan of classical music. ;D

Anyway, if the Beatles hadn't broken up, they'd have been Electric Light Orchestra. Or so they say. ;D ;)

I think, had the Beatles not broken up, that the music they wouldve come out with wouldve sounded more like a cross between Wings, The Who (in the 1970's) with a little bit of solo Lennon. I doubt very much they wouldve turned to disco, but they definately couldve went new wave.I mean, Paul was such an innovator, more so than John IMO, that he wouldve seen it coming and moved the band in that direction. You can kind of see this in some of Wings later albums. I also think George and Ringo wouldve had more of an input in the writing of the music during the later 1970's.

Personally, though, while I wouldve loved to have seen the Beatles in concert (I have seen Paul (1978/79 and 1993) and John (sometime in the late 70's, cant really remember as I was little), I think that they ended at the right time.



AN


Yeah, out of the four, Paul probably changes his sound with the times the most. Do you think, if the Beatles were still a band in the '80s, they would've perhaps done stuff like "Say Say Say"?

It's weird how Disco is much closer to the '60s than new wave, yet New Wave seems like much more of a natural sound for them, LOL. In fact, The Kinks had a big hit in 1983 with "Come Dancing" - sure it kinda sounds '80s, but has the spirit of their older stuff too. Maybe they would've sounded like that.

Disco is nothing like most 60s music...maybe Funk and Ska, but Funk's not really 60s (it really came to the fore in the late 60s), I think New Wave is more like 60s music (since it is more conventional 'rock').

Yeah, out of the four, Paul probably changes his sound with the times the most. Do you think, if the Beatles were still a band in the '80s, they would've perhaps done stuff like "Say Say Say"?

It's weird how Disco is much closer to the '60s than new wave, yet New Wave seems like much more of a natural sound for them, LOL. In fact, The Kinks had a big hit in 1983 with "Come Dancing" - sure it kinda sounds '80s, but has the spirit of their older stuff too. Maybe they would've sounded like that.


I've heard people say that if the Beatles had been around in the 70s they migh have put out stuff similar to ELO.

I've heard people say that if the Beatles had been around in the 70s they migh have put out stuff similar to ELO.


What do they base that assumption on?

But whatever they could have been, I think, sadly, the quality of their music would have gone downhill. I can think of few bands from the 80s, 70s, even 60s which have maintained (let alone improved) the standard of their music into the 90s, 00s. Bands usually have a golden age, usually near the start of their career. In the Beatles' case, it was pbly 1965-68: the Bee Gees were one exceptional (with too peaks), Rolling Stones 1965-1975, Pink Floyd 1967-1979, The Who 1965-1972, Aerosmith 1975-1985.etc.

What do they base that assumption on?



I don't know.

Needless to say, I don't think the Beatles' would sound anything like E.L.O.