Re: If the Beatles had reunited...

Date: 9 May 2003 09:42:55 -0700
Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles
Size: 3,764 bytes

email-address-deleted (Diana Fox) wrote in message news:<email-address-deleted>...
> I know speculation about what would have happened had the Beatles
> reunited has been overdone, but for those who don't take themselves
> too seriously, this might be an interesting angle:
> What would they have had to do in order to maintain their reputation?
>
Great question! I think the obvious answer would be to (I'm serious
here): that 'never re-uniting' would maintain their reputation.
> Obviously disappointment was guaranteed, since expectations would have
> been too high.
And, the consistency of their album releases may have been uneven,
like the great Abbey Road and the so-so Let It Be, as an loose, obtuse
example.
Even if they'd "simply" created great songs, it would
> have seemed like they were coasting, having been such innovators.
>
Hmm, I don't know about that one. I don't think the Beatles were ever
accused of slacking musically.
> Personally, Abbey Road and MMT are my favourite albums, but most
> people would agree that the triple-header of Rubber
> Soul/Revolver/Pepper was their most innovative period. Those heights
> would have been unlikely the second time around, since even the
> Greatest Band Ever would have suffered burnout eventually. They would
> have run out of Beatle Juice.
>
> (Sorry.)
>
Yep. One usually only gets to be an innovator once--with imitators
soon to follow. Like James Brown inventing funk music, which begot
disco, hip-hop, and rap music, the Beatles re-invented rock music.
> It was unlikely they would have taken us in a totally new direction.
> They would have had to encapsulate or embody a movement in a timely
> fashion in order to avoid Stoneism.
>
I think we would have gotten stuff like the White Album, only this
time sounding Wingish, Cold Turkey-ish, All Things Must Pass-ish, and
It Don't Come Easy-ish.
> Punk? The Beatles were pretty early with the back-to-basics
> philosophy. And they did have enough of a sense of humour that I could
> imagine them rebelling against themselves. But their music was simply
> too upbeat, even when they weren't.
Yes, their early stuff was punkish at times, except maybe lyric-wise.
>
> Hip Hop? Considering its roots, improbable.
>
I can imagine maybe a Lennon-McCartney composition written for Ringo
to do.
> Grunge? The Beatles did have the take-inspiration-from-various-sources
> approach. But, again, their music lacked the moodiness. And they were
> too clean.
>
They could get dirty when they wanted to, just never did it much.
> New Wave? Oh, god...
They would have tried it, like some on Back To The Egg stuff.
>
> No. If the Beatles had managed to sound innovative after 1970, it
> would have been by absorbing and transforming disco during its
> formative years.
Ha! I'd like to hear that! I'm repeating, but James Brown did that
best, maybe a Beatles collaboration?
As awful as 98% of it was, and whatever you may think
> of the other 2%, tunes like Dancing Queen and Staying Alive were
> closest to what the Beatles did: perfectly structured, upbeat pop
> songs. Paul certainly would have gone for it. Ringo would have
> appreciated the emphasis on beats. Even John would have relished
> writing lyrics with so much sexual innuendo.
>
> George, on the other hand, would have nixed the idea.
Thank Jah!
>
> Okay. Never mind.
...as Kurt would say. Great question. I think the Beatles would
still have mattered through the Seventies and maybe even most of the
Eighties. That might have been it. And hopefully they would have
re-invented themselves yet again to be current even today (unlike the
Stones). But this is all silly nonsense, ain't it?!!!
Tomorrow would never know.
All the best,
Pat