What would they be like today had they decided to stick it through like some other well known bands like the Rolling Stones?
What sort of music would they be playing given the availability of modern technology they wouldn’t have even dreamed of, way back then?
Once the monetary and personality squabbles over, would they have continued to influence one another (I am of course thinking mainly of Lennon and McCartney here) in as positive ways as they once had in their heyday?
Would they be as popular today as they were at their zenith? Would they still be strictly a studio band? Tours? Collaborations?
While I would like to think, in one of my more idealistic moments, that they would still be putting out compelling stuff well into the 80’s, realistically it’s more likely that they would have become just another bloated dinosaur band. It would have been cool to see them do punk (including playing in small clubs-perhaps on impromptu notice), but virtually no other 60’s mainstays went that route. In short it was probably better for their legacy that they weren’t churning out crap like The Who’s Face Dances or the Stones’ Emotional Rescue by the 1980’s.
Hey, in the parallel universe where the Beatles make it to 2010, maybe The Stones and The Who didn’t release those crappy albums!
I’m not sure how long they could go on as a studio-only band. After all, with today’s technology, they could record their own bits and email them to each other. A big part of The Beatles’ mystique was their synergy together* in person*. Even if they continued to exist as a music-producing outfit, I couldn’t see them spending that much time together.
Not if John Lennon had anything to say about it. That’s one reason why I think the whole was greater than the sum of the parts. Lennon and McCartney playing off each other is what made the Beatles the Beatles for me.
I don’t think they’d be just an oldies band – McCartney is even now writing new material and integrating it into his act, and I doubt Lennon would have been happy with the same old stuff. They’d probably be experimenting with the cutting edge of rock, but they’d still be doing fairly melodic songs.
They would be touring. Not only is that the way to make money these days, but I think their reservations would be overcome. There are ways to get the sounds they want outside the studio, and playing arenas is a better experience than when they did it. Also, the fans would have reached a point where the screaming didn’t overwhelm the music.
But during their lifetimes, weren’t John and George ambivalent at best about the experience of touring and playing live in front of large crowds?
I can imagine the Beatles all having successful solo careers (or side projects), yet getting together every once in a while to record a new album together, and/or play a show or two.
From what I understand about the economics of it then, the only reason you toured was to sell your albums. If you could sell them without touring, then you were golden. Of course, there’s also the whole not being able to hear yourself play thing (e.g., Shea Stadium) that kind of spoiled it, too.
George wasn’t ambivalent at the end: he hated it. There were scary incidents and people throwing jelly beans (which were hard) at him.
But they all liked performing live. Remember, “Let it Be” was once conceived of as being a live outdoor concert, and it’s clear from the rooftop concert that they all enjoyed doing it. It was the madness that bothered them, not only during the concert but on tour (there were a couple of incidents when they really had reason to fear for their lives).
However, if they returned to touring in the late 70s, it would have been different. The audience would have been older; it’s one thing to scream the entire concert when you’re 16, but when you’re pushing 30, it’s quite different. Also, sound systems were much better (take a look at the speakers at the Shea Stadium show). The Beatles could never really hear what they were doing.
Further, they would have played longer shows. Beatles concerts rarely exceeded 30 minutes; they would have had at hour on stage. It would have allowed them to do more and would have been more like their Hamburg days.
It really would have become much like the way the Rolling Stones tours are. The Stones had screaming fans in their early shows, but that slowly went away.
Very much appreciate your take on it, Chuck (… and all the other contributors, of course:)).
I’d even go as far as to say that only McCartney was still keen on pursuing the concerts venue. Lennon certainly wasn’t. As for Ringo, well… Who knows, when it comes to Ringo?
And I agree with Thudlow that they probably (more probably for some than for others) have pursued successful solo careers, and regrouped for the occasional team effort.
What I am still far not sure about is what orientation they would have given their music. Would George, for instance, have continued with the type of music he was especially into when the group broke up? Would Macca have written many more ‘Silly Love Songs’ or steered more back toward the ‘Let It Be’ vein? And would Lennon have continued to be as ‘political’ as he was?
I think the group as a whole would’ve aged very gracefully, maybe give up the rockstar status for something more meaningful. I could see them coming back to a more bluesy roots rock, perhaps showing up in smaller venues,smaller intimate outdoor fests touring together and apart with guest musician friends old and new.
How much? (In virtual money, of course). And who has top billing?
Bluesy roots rock? Well, perhaps. The thing is they would have to become a rock band first. The Beatles, AFAIK, have always leaned more towards pop. But I agree that the line between genres very easily becomes blurred more often than not.
As far as aging gracefully, I could certainly go with that…
