DM's Beatles forums
Beatles forums => Films, TV Shows, Interviews => Topic started by: nimrod on October 10, 2015, 10:33:14 AM
-
In 1975 it seems from this interview that John would've gone along with a reunion, I wonder what people think about this, should it have happened ? could it have happened ? and what do you think wouldve been the outcome ?
Personally I wouldve loved it, some of those solo songs with the others on them wouldve been great, thats my biggest gripe with the solo stuff, its missing the others
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vW5A3UHqLWM#)
-
I doubt a reunion would have challenged the heights they achieved in the 60s. But I think it would have easily surpassed most of their solo stuff.
I guess the question is, if they had, where would have it ended. Would have they dragged on into the 80s ( assuming in this alternate history John remained unassassinated) I'm glad that they didn't peter out like so many bands. They had a definined endpoint and, except for the Threetles stuff in the 90s, left their legacy as it was.
That all said I'm sure an album or two in the 70s with the pick of their solo songs getting the Beatles treatment would have been a good listen.
-
Hindsight is too easy to say it never would have worked. All the nitpicking and disagreements would have quickly come back and would have blown up even bigger.
-
Ya, they were living worlds away from each other. It would have been just a quickie, like the threetles were, and they would have moved on their separate ways again. Perhaps they would have appeared on each others albums more as guests!
I think it ended as it should have, they were a 60’s Band. ;yes
-
Their timespan completely encompasses the greatest era for pop music and to live in, the mid-50s to 1970.
A day doesn't pass by when I'm not pleased The Beatles split up when they did.
An LP from 1978? No thanks.
-
At the time I would have loved to see them re-form. Now I'm grateful that they never did. I recall the growing excitement in 1976 when Paul, despite riding high with Wings, speculated favourably to the press about a reunion. Ringo was up for it came the next report. John then climbed aboard with some very promising why not?/keep the door open comments. I remember the UK tabloids were in a frenzy. It all hinged on Harrison. The Daily Mirror were first (I think) with the headline "George says Yeah! Yeah! Yeah!" (the exact words are still burned into my brain). The strapline was, I think "He's ready and waiting for the big get together"..... and then..... nothing. Such a damp squib. But like I say, overall that's no bad thing. All four fabs blew hot and cold over this at one time or another during the 1970s. But as Paul famously said: "You can't re-heat a souffle". And I recall John at one point weighing in with "The world would be so disappointed with four rusty old men".
I think they would have improved the 70s (despite their absence, still for me the best decade on so many levels, especially music) but I doubt the 70s would have improved them. John's idea of simply putting a personal playlist together by cherry-picking your favourites from four separate, patchy catalogues works for me. After all, personal appearances and genuinely combined full group efforts were fading even by 1968.
I agree with Moog that to have witnessed them lamely fizzle out over a prolongued decline would have been awful and would have undoubtedly diluted the legend. And I suspect that is what would have happened, so with hindsight I'm thankful the split occurred when it did. I can still therefore astound younger music fans by reminding them that The Beatles broke up before any of the four members had reached their thirties. Astonishing when you think about it. The 60s were so lucky to be "their" decade.
-
Hindsight is too easy to say it never would have worked. All the nitpicking and disagreements would have quickly come back and would have blown up even bigger.
This. They weren't over the breakup and business disagreements no matter what they said. If all 4 of them went into the studio together at that time, I doubt it would have lasted a week.
-
The 60s weren't lucky to be The Beatles' decade, it's exactly the opposite....The Beatles were lucky they appeared in the 60s. They needed the era far more than the era needed them.
Lennon gets born in 1930 or 1950 and The Beatles aren't the biggest group ever, someone else gets the gig.
Ditto Dylan. Born in 1961, greatest singer-songwriter? Get outta here! Born 1941, and he's in (and wins) the race.
Who, what, how - all reasonable questions. 'When' is the only one that really matters.
-
The 60s weren't lucky to be The Beatles' decade, it's exactly the opposite....The Beatles were lucky they appeared in the 60s. They needed the era far more than the era needed them.
Lennon gets born in 1930 or 1950 and The Beatles aren't the biggest group ever, someone else gets the gig.
Ditto Dylan. Born in 1961, greatest singer-songwriter? Get outta here! Born 1941, and he's in (and wins) the race.
Who, what, how - all reasonable questions. 'When' is the only one that really matters.
Bullsh*t. You cant say that. You never take into account the determination of the people involved or the ability to adapt to whats going on at the time. They might have been the biggest band ever and came out of the 70's, 80's, or whenever.
-
I guess there is a point to be made that an all encompassing global act like The Beatles ( and Dylan) could only have occurred in the conditions made possible in the sixties.
But it's an old argument- do people make history or does history make people? And it's easy to view events in hindsight and see them as enevitable ( and because they did maybe they are, because they did).
It could drive a person mad. And of course we'll never know.
-
Id have loved them to get back together for 1 more album such as this...
Instant Karma
Every Night
My Sweet Lord
No 9 Dream
Another Day
Beware Of Darkness
Let Me Roll It
All Things Must Pass
Jealous Guy
Singalong Junk
That Would Be Something
What Is Life
Remember
Maybe Im Amazed
-
I guess there is a point to be made that an all encompassing global act like The Beatles ( and Dylan) could only have occurred in the conditions made possible in the sixties.
But it's an old argument- do people make history or does history make people? And it's easy to view events in hindsight and see them as enevitable ( and because they did maybe they are, because they did).
It could drive a person mad. And of course we'll never know.
Right. They might have sounded something like this if they reunited in the 70s...
http://youtu.be/M2nq9srPrgM (http://youtu.be/M2nq9srPrgM)
(http://i41.tinypic.com/acsk02.jpg)
-
No, Stars on 45 was very much 1980s (and those session musicians made an impressively good job of copying The Beatles)
Didn't John himself claim a 1970s Beatles would have sounded like ELO?
-
We got "Free As A Bird" & "Real Love".
There's your Reunion! roll:)
-
No, Stars on 45 was very much 1980s (and those session musicians made an impressively good job of copying The Beatles)
Didn't John himself claim a 1970s Beatles would have sounded like ELO?
Right, Mr Mustard. But I was referring to 1970s disco music.
Stars on 45 was one of the earliest Beatles tribute bands. Here they are doing their Beatles medley without the disco beat...
http://youtu.be/GuqLK_cquIg (http://youtu.be/GuqLK_cquIg)
-
Stars on 45 was one of the earliest Beatles tribute bands. Here they are doing their Beatles medley without the disco beat...
I guess they really were good because I thought it actually was The Beatles. I figured it was kind of like those cut-in records that my friends and I thought were so hilarious. I'm on topic Barry because two 70's post-Beatles songs can be heard in this. ;)
http://youtu.be/kaPqzgTc9OE (http://youtu.be/kaPqzgTc9OE)
Remember, I was only 11 when I thought this was hilarious.
-
There's actually THREE '70's post-Beatles songs if you include Ringo's cover of You're Sixteen.
-
We got "Free As A Bird" & "Real Love".
There's your Reunion! roll:)
Yes, as close as possible.
-
There's actually THREE '70's post-Beatles songs if you include Ringo's cover of You're Sixteen.
I must have missed that one somehow. LOL I was too busy wishing I was 11 again.
-
This is not the same as the actual record. The record is the Beatles cut and paste.
Stars on 45 was one of the earliest Beatles tribute bands. Here they are doing their Beatles medley without the disco beat...
[url]http://youtu.be/GuqLK_cquIg[/url] ([url]http://youtu.be/GuqLK_cquIg[/url])
-
https://youtu.be/wl7bYxKZoFc (https://youtu.be/wl7bYxKZoFc)
I aways liked brad Delpe of Bostons band Beatle Juice.
https://youtu.be/loiF4KGR-8s (https://youtu.be/loiF4KGR-8s)
-
Wow! I didn't know that he had a band that did Beatle covers and that he died not long ago.
-
Those guys play in Somerville all the time. Factoid.
glassesslip
-
I first saw them on painfully below zero, frozen First Night in Boston. and didn't realize it was Brad Delpe. I saw them a few times after.
-
The Beatles were expected to be great and they knew that. It's too bad they couldn't have let go of that and just made some recordings without the pressure of having to be excellent.
Honestly, I'd have liked works from them as more mature artists even if the music wasn't top forty. It's the pressure and expectation of top forty status that really ruined them. It would be nice to hear them play without worrying about it. So, if you liked something they did - fine. But, if you didn't - why pan them and say they're failures and has beens, etc. I'm just saying that everybody's worried they'd be bad if they continued. So what?? They didn't have to prove anything to anyone anymore. They should have been able to just jam if they wanted or improvise like jazz people do.
But they're history now. We'll never hear Post-Beatles-Beatles - ever.
-
(http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk38/rickdelsie/The%20Beatles/unnamed_zpsrv5lwotw.jpg) (http://s276.photobucket.com/user/rickdelsie/media/The%20Beatles/unnamed_zpsrv5lwotw.jpg.html)