|
Post by The End on Nov 5, 2007 13:02:38 GMT
The Beatles pretty much lead the way in the Sixties, in that where they trod musically, other bands would soon follow.
But if they had not split up, do you think this trend would have continued through the Seventies? Would they have been at the forefront of the raw "punk" sound or even have introduced disco to the masses?!!
Would they have continued leading the way? What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by Bobber on Nov 5, 2007 13:26:38 GMT
Maybe for a couple of more years, but then their power would certainly not be as big as it was in the sixties. It's part of the myth. Those who die young.... Kurt Cobain, Jim Morrison, Brian Jones, John Lennon, they're all legends in their own way. Of course The Beatles were big, but part of the myth is the fact that they belong to the sixties. Look at The Stones. They were big too in the sixties and the first part of the seventies. But as soon as disco (they even tried...) and punk came in, their role as influentual and innovative band were certainly over. Looking at the Beatles' solo output, there is nothing that points in another direction. The Beatles were not the group to introduce punk or even disco to the masses: there were other artists who were much better in that respect.
|
|
BlueMeanie
For A Number Of Things
I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together
Posts: 606
|
Post by BlueMeanie on Nov 15, 2007 16:41:48 GMT
I can't really see that they would have kept it up in the '70's. I think they'd lost their influence by then. Though they've made some good solo albums, I don't think any of them were what you'd call influential, or ground breaking in any way. They made the '60's what they were, but by 1970, new sounds were coming in ahead of them; Elton John, T-Rex, David Bowie, and the whole glam scene, not to mention Prog Rock bands like Genesis, and Yes, who were eating up the album charts. It would have been tough for them to stay on top.
|
|
Clarabella
I'll Be On My Way
All she needs is the stars up above
Posts: 104
|
Post by Clarabella on Nov 16, 2007 12:24:42 GMT
Yes, I think they would have ended up like The Rolling Stones. Obviously lots of fans, but not as magical and mystery as they were in the sixties. Somehow the Beatles were fortunate to end with the decade.
|
|
BlueMeanie
For A Number Of Things
I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together
Posts: 606
|
Post by BlueMeanie on Nov 16, 2007 12:36:25 GMT
Yes, I think they would have ended up like The Rolling Stones. Obviously lots of fans, but not as magical and mystery as they were in the sixties. Somehow the Beatles were fortunate to end with the decade. Ending up as the Stones have would have been tragic. They are a joke, and a sad caricature of themselves.
|
|
alexis
I'll Be On My Way
Posts: 447
|
Post by alexis on Nov 24, 2007 23:16:57 GMT
I wonder if one reason the Beatles broke up is that at some level they knew that if they didn't, they WOULD end up in some caricature of themselves as the Stones later became.
One of the things the Beatles seemed to be most proud of was never leaning on their past glory when making a new album. I sometimes think that if in 1969 the creative process was still roaring at rocket speed like it had been in 1964-67, their personal relationships would not have degenerated into squalor.
|
|
phoenyx
And That's A Start
I am he as you are me and we're all together...
Posts: 11
|
Post by phoenyx on Jan 5, 2008 21:51:53 GMT
I think they might be lost on the 70's, and they would had lost their magic. There were different influences, the birth of heavy metal with bands like Led Zep, Black Sabbath... I can't imagine the Beatles trying disco music...
|
|
alexis
I'll Be On My Way
Posts: 447
|
Post by alexis on Jan 5, 2008 22:39:55 GMT
|
|
phoenyx
And That's A Start
I am he as you are me and we're all together...
Posts: 11
|
Post by phoenyx on Jan 6, 2008 0:23:20 GMT
Maybe they would have done something better than what the Bee Gees did (and I like the Bee Gees too)... Who knows...
|
|
|
Post by The End on Jan 6, 2008 0:43:37 GMT
LOL!
|
|
|
Post by briank on Jan 24, 2008 7:10:05 GMT
No.
|
|
|
Post by beatlestone on Mar 26, 2008 15:38:48 GMT
If the Beatles would have continued in the seventies they would have broken up by 75. They probably would have done a one time only tour with the Stones as well. They wouldn't have been as influential in the 70's, as they were in the sixties, but still as popular as ever. They wouldn't have brought disco or punk to the masses like the Bee Gees & the Sex Pistols. The Beatles would have followed the trends of the decade with possibly one disco song.
|
|
Geoff
I'll Be On My Way
Show Me That I'm Everywhere And Get Me Home For Tea
Posts: 135
|
Post by Geoff on Mar 30, 2008 17:30:59 GMT
My suspicion is that The Beatles of the seventies would have been very like their solo albums: a lot of ups and downs with some good songs to be found among heaps of filler. They picked the right time to quit; as John said somewhere, it preserved the myth. The thought of The Beatles following The Rolling Stones around the football stadium circuit doesn't appeal to me much either. (remember Love You Live?)
|
|
|
Post by coconutfudge on Jun 20, 2009 3:44:25 GMT
I remember reading that they were toying with the idea that, if they continued on, they would have made the albums more balanced (4 songs each by John, Paul and George, with Ringo getting to contribute one if he cared to). John later said that if you wanted a Beatles album, you could tape the solo stuff one John track, one Paul track, one George track, one Ringo track. I think that would have made for some interesting listening in the early 70's.
|
|