If the Beatles had gotten back together...
-
RMartinez:
Here ya go, a parting gift!
The only thing I liked about that was the "Beatles" guitar! I want one!
-
What?! You didn't like the playing with his teeth and the Pete Townsend "windmills?" I was kinda hoping one was gonna light his guitar on fire to wow that late 70s crowd (but not the one with the Beatles on it of course)!
Nancy R:
RMartinez:
Here ya go, a parting gift!
The only thing I liked about that was the "Beatles" guitar! I want one!
-
Love this one!
-
oobu24:
Love this one!
Yeah, that is cool!
-
Mod Post This thread has received moderation. We kindly request that members please refrain from bickering and personal attacks, returning to topic. Thank you.
-
This thread is asking a question, which means opinions are going to be expressed in answering the question, which is a fun one, I think. If the Beatles stayed together, they would have wrote more songs and recorded more, maybe performed live. Music changed a LOT in the 70s, so we probably would not have seen anything from them like, say, the rooftop concert, as those speakers and amps were too small and bands like Led Zep, The Stones, and Black Sabbath were ushering in a new way of performing live with huge sound systems and lighting rigs, etc. IF the Beatles were going to compete, they would have had to adjust to the new way of doing things, which they did as solo performers. If they could continue in a healthy way, John's weirdness would have been in check, McCartney's pop nonsense would have been in check, George would have had more say and had more involvement as a song writer, and Ringo would have played drums, sang and wrote a few songs, and it maybe would have been very fab. Or not. We will never know. I like Cheap Trick because they sound kind of like the Beatles at points, and have even recorded with John Lennon and were produced for one LP by George Martin, the Beatles' producer. Other bands carried on in the same spirit, like ELO, NRBQ, etc.
-
This is a great discussion we have dovetailed into...the Beatles sounding like Cheap Trick? I don't buy it!
-
LiveForever:
This is a great discussion we have dovetailed into...the Beatles sounding like Cheap Trick? I don't buy it!
I buy it! This was produced by George Martin:
-
Or maybe they would have sounded like this:
-
RMartinez:
LiveForever:
This is a great discussion we have dovetailed into...the Beatles sounding like Cheap Trick? I don't buy it!
I buy it! This was produced by George Martin:
OK this song definitely has some Beatlesesque overtones to it and this guy (sorry don't know the lead singer's name) is definitely channeling his inner John Lennon? But to me this is cheap trick trying to sound like the Beatles. I don't think the Beatles would adapt their sound and style to sound like cheap trick if that was the implication.
-
LiveForever:
RMartinez:
LiveForever:
This is a great discussion we have dovetailed into...the Beatles sounding like Cheap Trick? I don't buy it!
I buy it! This was produced by George Martin:
OK this song definitely has some Beatlesesque overtones to it and this guy (sorry don't know the lead singer's name) is definitely channeling his inner John Lennon? But to me this is cheap trick trying to sound like the Beatles. I don't think the Beatles would adapt their sound and style to sound like cheap trick if that was the implication.
That was never my implication, nor John Lennon's. I think all John meant was that he thought the Beatles, had they stayed together, would have kept a rock and roll edge, and still have a lot of melody and harmony. Cheap Trick certainly are paying homage to the Beatles, and do a lot in their music.
-
RMartinez:
LiveForever:
RMartinez:
LiveForever:
This is a great discussion we have dovetailed into...the Beatles sounding like Cheap Trick? I don't buy it!
I buy it! This was produced by George Martin:
OK this song definitely has some Beatlesesque overtones to it and this guy (sorry don't know the lead singer's name) is definitely channeling his inner John Lennon? But to me this is cheap trick trying to sound like the Beatles. I don't think the Beatles would adapt their sound and style to sound like cheap trick if that was the implication.
That was never my implication, nor John Lennon's. I think all John meant was that he thought the Beatles, had they stayed together, would have kept a rock and roll edge, and still have a lot of melody and harmony. Cheap Trick certainly are paying homage to the Beatles, and do a lot in their music.
My apologies if I misinterpreted the original point. Certainly not trying to put words in your mouth, RM (or John Lennon's for that matter). Maybe it's just semantics but I don't completely subscribe to this notion. To me, Cheap Trick of the late 70s sound a whole lot like the Beatles of the late 60s (at least the two songs you shared). I don't think John is giving the band enough credit for its creativity. The thing that was so special and unique about the Beatles is that each new record sounded like nothing we'd heard before. They continued to push the envelope and innovate with each new album. I don't believe the Beatles of the late 70s would've sounded the same as the Beatles of the late 60s, which is what we got from Cheap Trick. I'd like to think the Beatles would've continued to evolve vs. remaining stagnant.
-
LiveForever:
RMartinez:
LiveForever:
RMartinez:
LiveForever:
This is a great discussion we have dovetailed into...the Beatles sounding like Cheap Trick? I don't buy it!
I buy it! This was produced by George Martin:
OK this song definitely has some Beatlesesque overtones to it and this guy (sorry don't know the lead singer's name) is definitely channeling his inner John Lennon? But to me this is cheap trick trying to sound like the Beatles. I don't think the Beatles would adapt their sound and style to sound like cheap trick if that was the implication.
That was never my implication, nor John Lennon's. I think all John meant was that he thought the Beatles, had they stayed together, would have kept a rock and roll edge, and still have a lot of melody and harmony. Cheap Trick certainly are paying homage to the Beatles, and do a lot in their music.
My apologies if I misinterpreted the original point. Certainly not trying to put words in your mouth, RM (or John Lennon's for that matter). Maybe it's just semantics but I don't completely subscribe to this notion. To me, Cheap Trick of the late 70s sound a whole lot like the Beatles of the late 60s (at least the two songs you shared). I don't think John is giving the band enough credit for its creativity. The thing that was so special and unique about the Beatles is that each new record sounded like nothing we'd heard before. They continued to push the envelope and innovate with each new album. I don't believe the Beatles of the late 70s would've sounded the same as the Beatles of the late 60s, which is what we got from Cheap Trick. I'd like to think the Beatles would've continued to evolve vs. remaining stagnant.
Does it REALLY matter? The Beatles broke up in 1970. So we will never know. All we can do is speculate and have a little fun with it. NO one knows or ever will know. NO one will ever be right about this. Time for me to move on from this topic.
-
I was just having a friendly debate. Which, as you pointed out to the moderator is what this space is all about. No need to get hard feelings. Of course none of it "matters" - but isn't it fun to debate and talk about? Does it matter if Tiger Woods is better than Jack Nicklaus or if the 1972 Dolphins would beat the 2007 Patriots?? Of course not either - but it doesn't stop sports fans from debating it in a fun way.
-
LiveForever:
I was just having a friendly debate. Which, as you pointed out to the moderator is what this space is all about. No need to get hard feelings. Of course none of it "matters" - but isn't it fun to debate and talk about? Does it matter if Tiger Woods is better than Jack Nicklaus or if the 1972 Dolphins would beat the 2007 Patriots?? Of course not either - but it doesn't stop sports fans from debating it in a fun way.
Fair enough. So what do you think the Beatles would have done had they stayed together?
-
I definitely think they would've cranked out about 3 more really awesome albums and then called it quits around 1975. In 1977 they would've reunited for a new world tour commemorating 10 years of Sgt Pepper. They would've released one more album following this tour. Also, in my imagination John Lennon was still alive and we saw a few reunion tours throughout the 80s and 90s.
-
LiveForever:
I definitely think they would've cranked out about 3 more really awesome albums and then called it quits around 1975. In 1977 they would've reunited for a new world tour commemorating 10 years of Sgt Pepper. They would've released one more album following this tour. Also, in my imagination John Lennon was still alive and we saw a few reunion tours throughout the 80s and 90s.
That's ok, since the whole thing is imaginary! The thing I wonder about is how they would have fared live. Their later material, and certainly into the 70s, had such complex instrumentation, I could not see them up on stage in 1975 just the four of them. It would probably have been necessary to have other musicians on stage. Sgt. Pepper's in 1977 would have required strings and horns, percussion, etc.
-
I always felt they were going to play together in the 80's, but Chapman changed the plans. Beatles in the 80's = music like Electric Light Orchestra. I think.
-
If THE BEATLES had gotten back together... They'd be "GREATER THAN EVER!"
-
WingsOfMacca:
I always felt they were going to play together in the 80's, but Chapman changed the plans. Beatles in the 80's = music like Electric Light Orchestra. I think.
Yeah, something along those lines.