Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[zipp]

I think the Beatles should have got back together sometime in the seventies.

In fact I also think they should never have separated, just had a year or two off to do their own things.

What do you think?

[tkitna]

I'm kind of satisfied with the mystique and finality of it all to be honest.

[zipp]

I'm kind of satisfied with the mystique and finality of it all to be honest.

Because you think they would have destroyed their own myth?

[stevie]

Yeah I agree with Todd. The fact they didn’t keep going on for years like other bands who lost all their swag and just go through the motions

It added to the legend and I’ve always considered breaking up was the best thing they ever did career wise.

Go out on a high note like Abbey Road? Jeez most bands would kill for just an album that good let alone the final one. Ok things did get messy in the initial breakup but the legend and mystique of those 8 magnificent years and what happened in it lives on forever.  And that wouldn’t have been the case had they meandered along till the mid 70’s

[Mr Mustard]

I believe John once said: "The world would have been so disappointed with four rusty old men".

And Paul's comment: "You can't re-heat a soufflé"

If Lennon & McCartney were against the idea, that's good enough for me.

[Bobber]

Not for me. The legend of The Beatles fits perfectly in the sixties. I'm with Todd on this one.

[zipp]

Go out on a high note like Abbey Road? Jeez most bands would kill for just an album that good let alone the final one.

No,sorry, I disagree. They went out on a really low note with the album Let It Be, a pale imitation of what a Beatles album should be.

And then they squabbled among themselves and Lennon in particular badmouthed the Beatles' legend.

 

[nimrod]

No
Im glad they 'Let It Be'
They did a fantastic job in the 60's creating very relevant music and even changing music. But I dont believe they would've been so relevant in the 70's.
Other bands took the mantle of the 70's

[zipp]

Other bands took the mantle of the 70's

Which other bands are you thinking of, nimrod?

[Moogmodule]

I’m repeating myself but

1. For the sake of the mythical story of the Beatles they broke up at the right time and have preserved their legend, rather than tailing off until they become a nostalgia act. So in that respect I’m glad they ended.

2. From a musical point of view I’m sure the Beatles working together would have been better than the solo Beatles. I would have loved to have heard what they would have done as a group on the best of the solo output.

I’m happy holding  those contradictory positions.

[blmeanie]

2. From a musical point of view I’m sure the Beatles working together would have been better than the solo Beatles. I would have loved to have heard what they would have done as a group on the best of the solo output.

So about this, lots of people on here and everywhere have stated the solo years were not as good as them together.  I agree that their competitiveness and limited but important writing together helped them all.  However, the pure volume of solo songs in years after the break up produced volume of material that may have been the same material if they stayed together, may not have been.  Enough from each of their albums would have consolidated down to great albums...if they could have managed to work with each other.

[Hello Goodbye]

I believe John once said: "The world would have been so disappointed with four rusty old men".

And Paul's comment: "You can't re-heat a soufflé"

If Lennon & McCartney were against the idea, that's good enough for me.

Well, Ringo felt differently...


https://youtu.be/7WluAUK6drc

[zipp]

1. For the sake of the mythical story of the Beatles they broke up at the right time and have preserved their legend, rather than tailing off until they become a nostalgia act. So in that respect I’m glad they ended.

2. From a musical point of view I’m sure the Beatles working together would have been better than the solo Beatles. I would have loved to have heard what they would have done as a group on the best of the solo output.

But Paul and Ringo have become Beatles nostalgia acts (which actually doesn't bother me) with a scattering of solo songs.

And I obviously agree with your second point. One good Beatles album every two years would have been so much better than four mediocre solo outings.

[tkitna]

Because you think they would have destroyed their own myth?

Not destroyed, but some of the magic dust would have been dusted off and missing.

All four of them had moments during their solo efforts, but i'm not sure (actually I doubt) they would have fared well together.  I'll get more in depth later for why I believe that, but have to go right now.

[Moogmodule]

But Paul and Ringo have become Beatles nostalgia acts (which actually doesn't bother me) with a scattering of solo songs.

But they’re not the Beatles just former Beatles. Which keeps the group mythos intact, even if the individuals aren’t what they once were. Any deficiencies in solo work we can attribute to the lack of the other members. Which isn’t necessarily true. But it lets we mega fans keep  the idea that the Beatles together were sort of a magical grouping. I doubt that legendary lustre would have survived if they’d stayed together another ten years or more.

[zipp]

... it lets we mega fans keep  the idea that the Beatles together were sort of a magical grouping. I doubt that legendary lustre would have survived if they’d stayed together another ten years or more.

Any mega fan worth his or her salt should believe that the Beatles together would have remained a magical grouping.

If you doubt it, you're doubting the Beatle legend, which is the very thing you're striving to defend.

[Bobber]

Any mega fan worth his or her salt should believe that the Beatles together would have remained a magical grouping.

If you doubt it, you're doubting the Beatle legend, which is the very thing you're striving to defend.

Wow. That is one statement. So, in return, you say I'm not a megafan for not believing that The Beatles would remain a magical grouping should they have stuck together?

[zipp]

Wow. That is one statement. So, in return, you say I'm not a megafan for not believing that The Beatles would remain a magical grouping should they have stuck together?

Well, you know Bobber, strangely enough, yes I think I do.

A megafan believes in the Beatles myth and legend (not my words, but ones used by others in this thread).

[Hello Goodbye]

Let's see what The Beatles themselves said when asked what was the one thing they'd like to hold onto when fame and fortune disappeared...


https://youtu.be/L0wZNgEvYOY



 

[zipp]

Let's see what The Beatles themselves said when asked what was the one thing they'd like to hold onto when fame and fortune disappeared...

So, it's official,  they were only in it for the money!

I like John being called Fingo because he has no rings!