We all know how their public lives or careers were by late 70s (I don't think that matters at all) but they told the press many different things through the years ... not just to shut their mouths ... the usual question had to be a torture in the early 70s because they were making albums so the interviews were there too   ... but that changed a bit by late 70s ...

They were going to make a documentary about their lives so I don't think there was so much bad blood by that time ... their worst time together was 10 years ago ... they were meeting again ...

About their quality as musicians: they were the best studio band for me if you consider the quality of the music and the recordings they  were able to make in the studio (the stopped being a "band" since 1967 more or less) ... probably the live performances would have been a dissapointment somehow ...

... after all, I'm with Ringo when he said once (I ain't got the quote) that he played with Elton John (piano), Keith Richardss (bass), Eric Clapton (guitar) and some other at one studio and they sounded horrible 'cos there were too many leaders in that band ... that's the thing: Paul, for example, could provide good bass lines and harmonies to John's or George's songs without being the leader of the song and the same goes for George (he did during all the 60s!!!  ) and Ringo, of course! ...

...  I can't really see the problem of them as a band of musicians    ... there were better musicians than them, of course, but they made their songs turn into magic (it's not only the playing) ... Ringo said in the Anthologies that you can say when they were happy recording a song ... I know what he meant ...

Anyway, it didn't happen   ...

I still think the Beatles would have sounded good together regardless of the passage of time.  I'm not really sure about John, especially with his statement that he hadn't touched a guitar in 5 years.  But I've got a feeling, they'd have worked it out.  They'd have sounded good unplugged, too.  

I see the love there that's sleeping.  I look at the world and I know it is turning.  With every mistake, we must surely be learning.  I look from the booth at the play you are staging.  As I'm sitting here doing nothing but aging ... guitars are weeping across the universe.  Grab the mike there and keep it quite low.

Sugar plum fairie, I read the news while a crowd of people stood and stared.  Then somebody spoke and I went into a dream - that the Beatles were performing together again.   But that's a No. 9 dream, isn't it?  A dead man's dream.  No more Beatles; the Blue Meanies won in this version of the Pepperland universe.

^You've said it all!

Quoted from Loco Mo

No more Beatles; the Blue Meanies won in this version of the Pepperland universe.

I hope you're not holding me responsible LM?

You needn't be blue, Blue Meanie .  I'm not blaming you.  It also really depends a lot on whether you're from the Pepperland family or from the Magic Mushroom family.  You know, in the end, the Blue Meanies were won over to the BEATLES POV!  So, yes, I guess that redeems you after all.  

Quoted from Loco Mo

I still think the Beatles would have sounded good together regardless of the passage of time.  I'm not really sure about John, especially with his statement that he hadn't touched a guitar in 5 years.  But I've got a feeling, they'd have worked it out.  They'd have sounded good unplugged, too.  

I see the love there that's sleeping.  I look at the world and I know it is turning.  With every mistake, we must surely be learning.  I look from the booth at the play you are staging.  As I'm sitting here doing nothing but aging ... guitars are weeping across the universe.  Grab the mike there and keep it quite low.

Sugar plum fairie, I read the news while a crowd of people stood and stared.  Then somebody spoke and I went into a dream - that the Beatles were performing together again.   But that's a No. 9 dream, isn't it?  A dead man's dream.  No more Beatles; the Blue Meanies won in this version of the Pepperland universe.

I think thats hopeful thinking. You're thinking of The Beatles as magical and that all problems and past grudges would have been thrown out the window. Most likely the truth of the matter is that they would have been horrible. John, George and Ringo hadn't played in a band like The Beatles for almost 10 years. They all probably had a mentality of a solo artist. I think they knew that and wanted to keep the end of The Beatles the way it ended.

And look what happened to the Stones. They sounded bloody awful by the end of the 70's. With one or two exceptions.

I'd have hated for the Beatles to have come back. The chances of them sounding crap would have been very high. Then everyone would have remembered them for that.

Quoted from BlueMeanie

[...]
I'd have hated for the Beatles to have come back. The chances of them sounding crap would have been very high. Then everyone would have remembered them for that.

But you're not saying that they're remembered by Abbey Road or Let It Be, are you?

Quoted from raxo

But you're not saying that they're remembered by Abbey Road or Let It Be, are you?

Hehe of course hes not saying that. But what I think what he was trying to say is that if they came back they would have somewhat wounded their image or what people remember them by. But Abbey Road was a good way to go out in terms of albums. An 80s or late 70s album had the high risk of being horrible thats for sure. The Beatles might have been doing Disco tunes because of Paul and that would definately hurt their image. The times were different then the 60s, they wouldn't have produced another Abbey Road or White album, it probably would have been like McCartney II and what the other three were doing in 1979-1980. It would have been dreadful.

Quoted from Wordno

Hehe of course hes not saying that. But what I think what he was trying to say is that if they came back they would have somewhat wounded their image or what people remember them by. But Abbey Road was a good way to go out in terms of albums. An 80s or late 70s album had the high risk of being horrible thats for sure. The Beatles might have been doing Disco tunes because of Paul and that would definately hurt their image. The times were different then the 60s, they wouldn't have produced another Abbey Road or White album, it probably would have been like McCartney II and what the other three were doing in 1979-1980. It would have been dreadful.

But they composed mediocre songs too in the 60s and some of those were not released because they had each other to tell them they were not good enough ...

... so I don't think that Paul (that did some discoesq songs but just a few) would have been doing that with the guys ... and, after all, I believe that their way of recording would have been very similar to the one of the White Album, what else? ...

... let's remember that almost all of us agree with "the 4 together were definetelly more than 1+1+1+1" so, please, don't compare their stuff by late 70s with what would have been as a group effort (John had some good songs in demos, by the way )

Quoted from raxo

But they composed mediocre songs too in the 60s and some of those were not released because they had each other to tell them they were not good enough ...

There were only a handful.

Quoted from raxo

(John had some good songs in demos, by the way )

From what I've heard, they weren't that good!

Quoted from BlueMeanie

There were only a handful.

Are we talking about mediocre or bad?  

Quoted from BlueMeanie

From what I've heard, they weren't that good!

Among those hundreds of demos there were some good songs, I think   .. but, after all, for an album he only needed 4 or 5, the rest could have been filled by George and Paul   ...

Quoted from raxo

But they composed mediocre songs too in the 60s and some of those were not released because they had each other to tell them they were not good enough ...

... so I don't think that Paul (that did some discoesq songs but just a few) would have been doing that with the guys ... and, after all, I believe that their way of recording would have been very similar to the one of the White Album, what else? ...

... let's remember that almost all of us agree with "the 4 together were definetelly more than 1+1+1+1" so, please, don't compare their stuff by late 70s with what would have been as a group effort (John had some good songs in demos, by the way )

So you're saying about 8 years of not being in a band(Not Paul, He still had the mentality of being in a band as he saw Wings as a real band and so do I) they would just magically put their differences aside and produce something as great as the White album? Again you have to look at the years, 1968 and 1978 two different years and ten years apart,. Music changes, it would not have been music like the late 60s, it would have been music of late 70s which only Paul was coming out with good stuff around that time. George would not want to take a backseat to Paul and John again after being solo for 8 years. I think Paul and Ringo would be alright
with the idea. John would have most likely hated it. You seem to think that magic would fix all the problems and they would have made great music. If they got back together, tension would have been their preventing them from coming out with anything great. It would have been more like the Get back sessions than anything else.

If I can't compare their late 60s stuff, than what am I suppose to compare it to in order to get some idea of what a Beatles album would sound like in the late 70s? It certainly wouldn't sound like Abbey Road because that has a sound of early 70s stuff and by 1978 almost everything started to take shape of the sound of the 80s. Again you're thinking some sort of magic would have made The Beatles friends again like in the early 60s so that they could have made a brilliant album in 1979. In reality they pretty much despised each other in the late 70s and the sessions would have fell apart because of tension.