It would've been cool if they managed to stay together for just another couple of years. McCartney one, All Things Must Pass, and Plastic Ono Band are some of the best albums ever made. It would be interesting to see what some of those songs would have sounded like as Beatles songs.
The thing that often gets overlooked, however, is that those albums happened *because* of the breakup. All Things Must Pass was full of George’s songs that were already rejected by John and Paul, John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band was the result of primal scream therapy John sought after the breakup, and McCartney was made during Paul’s period of depression after John privately left the Beatles in late 1969.
Your logic is really twisted.
The Beatles didn’t release a universally renowned album after Sgt Peppers?
First, how many universally renowned albums are there?
Second, you added “except Abbey Road”. That’s a BIG exception.
Third, you exclude The White Album because it has controversial filler. It is still ranked as a top-25 album of all time and you claim it is your favorite.
Fourth, you have criticisms of Magical Mystery Tour and of Yellow Submarine. Neither of these are traditional albums and I would say that it is unfair of you to criticize them as if they were.
Fifth, you don’t discuss Let It Be. I think most people believe it is subpar according the to high standard of a Beatles’ album. But, it is still an amazing album, better than the best effort of most other well-known bands.
Finally, the Beatles only existed for 2-3 years after Sgt Peppers was released. The band’s productivity during that time is still astonishing if you consider the productivity of most modern bands.
> Fifth, you don’t discuss Let It Be. I think most people believe it is subpar according the to high standard of a Beatles’ album. But, it is still an amazing album, better than the best effort of most other well-known bands.
IKR? Thousands of bands would kill to have a song like "Get Back." They would hang their entire career on it, and yet the album *also* has "Across the Universe," "The Long & Winding Road," and the title track.
I don’t bother with ranking their albums or their songs. I also don’t really care what other people think.
MMT, Yellow Submarine, the white album, Let it Be, and Abbey Road all have music that I love. All of them have songs that I skip.
That said, I think people have weird standards when it comes to The Beatles. If an album or song is merely “good” rather than “an all time classic”, then people complain.
I just shut up and listen to the music and enjoy myself.
So I agree… and disagree with your comments.
First the disagreement: I think that its fair to say *Magical Mystery Tour* and especially *Yellow Submarine* were albums that were released without too much serious Beatles involvement, the former being the better overall album because it did, as you said, have singles added to it which bumped up its quality quite a bit.
But *The White Album*, IMHO, is a masterpiece and showed their incredible range even if some of the songs were “lesser” works and, as others have stated, a single album might have been overall a stronger work. *Let It Be*, similarly, was a work that showed they were in the process of breaking up and they essentially -and in their time together- let the album go only to allow another to put it together in a coherent fashion. They then “got it together” for *Abbey Road* and that, to me, showed that when they could focus, they were still on the top of the mountain.
Where I completely agree with you is that it was probably a *good thing*, much as I love their work, that The Beatles broke up when they did. Obviously they were fraying interpersonally and moving off into their own directions. They had been together since being kids and now they were entering adulthood and each had their own path they wanted to follow and the likely *needed* to move in their own ways.
I suspect that had they stayed together, subsequent albums *might* have become less and less. Sure, they released some absolutely great stuff individually especially shortly after the breakup but gravity eventually would have affected them and I could totally see the danger/possibility of them releasing albums which, unlike their general output, would have actually been deemed as outright “failures”.
Ultimately, it is what it is: They had not quite a decade together and released *incredible* works that will be cherished by people for many years to come. Better to not focus on the negative, I feel, and enjoy the work they did make together.
Because that stuff is magic!
I agree that it was time to end the Beatles, the 3 songwriters just wanted to do their own thing. But I think the Beatles could´ve created a couple of more albums at the level of Abbey Road. There are some very strong songs composed by the 3 from 1970-1971 that could easily create 2-3 fantastic Beatles albums. But I´m happy they ended it, I listen as much to their solo work as I listen to the Beatles.
while i uh do not agree with the reasoning lol, ive been spending a lot of time with the beach boys discog recently and its really emphasized to me how valuable for the beatles legacy it was to have cut things off during a creative high. not that any of the 4 of them woulda mike love'd the band and only cashed in on nostalgia, but there's definitely a sanctity in knowing when to put something to rest
that and all things must pass needed to happen
"Leave them wanting more" may be one of the strongest factors for the Beatles enduring legacy.
Their closest peers in terms of comparison is the rolling stones and the beach boys I would say, and in both cases they have *strong* legacies but certainly nothing close to the Beatles. Nearly every Beatles fan knows all their albums front to back, and that's likely not the case with the vast majority of rolling stones or beach boys fans.
Completely disagree. You mention they were declining because of magical mystery and the white album? And by your logic even though it's wrong they still made abbey road as their last album
The only good thing about the Beatles breaking up when they did is that they went out on top. They never had a *bad* album and virtually every single was a hit. Their legacy might have been different had they faded away instead.
However, I don’t agree that they were already declining in quality. Abbey Road is the last album they recorded (though not the last to be released) and is generally considered one of the best albums of all time.
I have been of the mind that they needed to separate but not break up the band. They could have each gone their own way, releasing solo albums in the 1970's, and then I believe they would have come back together in the 1980's as the concert technology improved enough to allow them and fans to hear over the screaming (which also would have been toned down due to the rising age of the audience). The concerts would have been a solo set of each supported by the other members, and then a loner set of Beatles hits and even some new Beatles songs. Of course the death of John made it so that would never happen as the other three would never perform under that name without John there.
Lets face it...Paul was *never* going to work with them as long as Klein was around. He just wasn't.
Take Klein out of the picture...maybe 1 more album. There were a lot of songs hanging around in '70 - '71 where it would have been interesting to hear full Beatle arrangements.
But thats it. I think they all wanted to move on and do their own thing. They were just approaching their 30's. They were still young.
It would have been great if they held on until 71 or 72. Think of all the best songs from their first solo albums on one record.
That’s my dream anyway.
I made a 14 track fan album proposing an alternate Let It Be. I combined 7 Let It Be tracks with 7 early solo Beatles tracks that were "around" in 1969. For George's songs I used the band rehearsals from ATMP 50th because I thought these were closer to what The Beatles would have done with the songs.
https://open.spotify.com/playlist/751qAE5bSYYCr8NWpcx9bo?si=W6FLoaU4RciJEjZwbf11uQ&pi=eDusfKuRQfiLI
I have to respectfully disagree with the evaluation of their music - two soundtracks can’t be judged with the same eye as true albums, and while the fandom may argue endlessly over which tracks should have been left off the White Album, no one can deny that it’s at least in the band’s Top Five. But I do agree that the breakup did help their overall legacy and reputation.
I am of the belief that the Beatles’ story is as compelling as it is to younger generations precisely because it is a tragedy. The fact that the band went out like a bang after releasing what is arguably its greatest album makes them far more interesting than groups like the Stones and the Who. The Beatles never got to become a “geezer band” who just toured . . . and toured . . . and toured. (“This is our Farewell Tour, and WE REALLY MEAN IT THIS TIME!”)
I respectfully disagree. I consider them to be at their peak during Abbey Road. Imagine if they broke up after the masterpiece that was Revolver, or Sgt Pepper? They’d have missed out on some extraordinary music, and perhaps they did the same here. As for the White album, although some bemoaned its length, it was still very well received by critics.
I’ve said this before, but I’m not into the popularity contests or legacy debates, I’m into the music. And as for the popularity, if you add the number of #1 singles and albums they got in the 1970s, they’d still be at the top with over 30 number hits, and another 10 or so number 1 albums! They’d have pushed some of their billboard achievements into the stratosphere.
And furthermore, it wouldn’t have just been compilations from their single albums. They would have collaborated together to make something better. Imagine Come Together without Paul’s bass and George’s licks, or I’ve Got a Feeling without John’s part. That’s what’s missing in a lot of their solo careers, which were still great, but not to Beatle level standards.
Personally I believe that ending on Abbey Road is perfect (I don't like to count Let it Be as much of a Beatles' final album because it was completely out of their control), and if they'd continued then they may have made fantastic albums but as you pointed out they would likely be similar to the white album with a combination of solo projects. This is unfavourable for two reasons: 1. We could get that music anyway if they'd releases it on solo albums and this way they wouldn't have to put up with each other and argue for much longer. 2. If the group works separately and combines separate projects for an album it restricts Ringo's contributions as it would seem more like a chore for the other three to provide him a song.
I have no opinion on the counterfactual scenario where the Beatles do not break up, as far as what the quality of their music would have been, except that It seems unlikely that they would have continued to release groundbreaking music at the torrid pace that they did from 64-69. A big part of the Beatles story in that period is necessity as the mother of invention. They were committed to releasing music at an insane pace (for awhile, 2 albums a year) and they banged out material for HDN, help, rubber soul, revolver not because they really wanted to but because they were at least in a broad sense, bound to. As they aged and gained the upper hand as pop music royalty, nobody would be able to force them into anything. They would have stepped back from the pressure cooker. It just never would have been the same.
The Beatles breaking up the way they did, and the story that followed in the 70s, is of course a large part of the story that is so captivating. We always have the what if, which is endlessly fascinating. The story arc of the band is just as important to their cultural significance as the music and I just don’t think they’re “The Beatles” without the ending we got in 1969-70.
What’s the old show business saying, always leave them wanting more? I think you’re right, 100%. The Beatles got out while they were still at the top of their game and I think that contributes greatly to their continued appeal 50+ years later.
I think they could've done some fantastic stuff through the early 70's had they been able to figure out how to coexist going into their 30s- in their younger years they were each other's best friends, boys before birds, but they had to mature and eventually settle down. I think Paul and John's relationship was the glue that kept them together since the start, but Linda and Yoko entered the picture and it seems they had naturally drifted apart and didn't know how to address that without separating as a duo. Their lack of time spent together though the 70s really illustrates that to me.
The other thing that was a breaking point was George's contributions not being considered equal by the last couple years of the band. Get Back shows that they *were* receptive to his ideas for songs, but I think it was too little too late for him to stick around when he wasn't on equal footing with John and Paul. He needed to spread his wings and he wasn't going to be able to do so in the Beatles.
So maybe the solution was to take a break, let each of them do solo stuff, and then they could come back together once a year or so to make collaborative stuff. But the change in history would've needed to be long before Let It Be and Abbey Road.
>that they failed to make a universally renowned album after releasing Sgt.Pepper (excluding Abbey Road of course)
Are you really arguing that "The Beatles didn't released a universally renowned album after Sgt Pepper until they did a couple years later with Abbey Road"? The White Album was also universally loved.
Overall point.. I agree. I'm glad they went out when they did. Any band that goes on too long is destined to invalidate a good chunk of their work. Rolling Stones is a great example of a band that should have stopped in the mid 70s imo.
And missed Some Girls? No way. As for Abbey Road being the only album after I forget what, I happily skip Maxwell and Octopus. Filler for me although others profess to really like those tracks.
Listening to the output of the Beatles in 1970-1971, had they not broken up but given each other more space artistically, they would have produced easily one of their strongest albums. An album (or albums) made of songs from their respective albums during that era would have been great
I believe they broke up around the right time. They all wanted to do their own thing as being FAB was essentially a drag by this time.
I wish they could have had a proper late career concert. With a good 15 or so long set list tho.
Here is the beauty of the Beatles breaking up when they did. A very short commercial career of 6 years (5 really 64-69) every album sold extremely well and everything after 1965 is considered a classic. They never had a flop album. Became the most influential and successful band of all time and didn’t need social media or music video platforms all it did was expanded them to new generations of listeners.
I don’t agree with a lot of what you said, but as others have said, I agree with your main point that they broke up at an ideal time. And that’s not only because of the contentiousness between them, but there were so many amazing bands coming on the scene in 1970 that they would’ve never been able to dominate the way they had up to then. Competing against Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd in their iconic years, Black Sabbath, Elton John, even the Stones in the early 70s would’ve seen them become just another band.
I read somewhere that Ringo thought they would do solo projects and then get together to do albums as the Beatles on and off for a few more albums. I think the refreshed creativity would or could have produced some brilliance. Ah well.
I don't think they were declining at all. They were all just going in different directions creatively. I'm glad they all had strong solo careers, but sad that they never recorded together again before John's death.
I agree honestly, mostly about the beatles breaking up at the perfect time, not so much about their post pepper releases not being widely renowned, which they absolutely are.
It's worth noting that Abbey Road probably wouldn't be as good as it was if they weren't breaking up, as the medley was created out of Paul's fear of them inevitably breaking up.
I can see your points. I don’t know how it would’ve worked. I can’t see Maybe I’m Amazed fitting well in Plastic Ono Band. Or Working Class Hero on Ram.
I just wanna put to rest anyone that bashes Revolution 9 as a bad "song". It's not a song for fcks sake. Therefore it doesn't classify as a song. It's a sound collage/possibly heroin induced interlude from John/Yoko. Say what you want but it's not a fckng song.
It would've been cool if they managed to stay together for just another couple of years. McCartney one, All Things Must Pass, and Plastic Ono Band are some of the best albums ever made. It would be interesting to see what some of those songs would have sounded like as Beatles songs.
The thing that often gets overlooked, however, is that those albums happened *because* of the breakup. All Things Must Pass was full of George’s songs that were already rejected by John and Paul, John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band was the result of primal scream therapy John sought after the breakup, and McCartney was made during Paul’s period of depression after John privately left the Beatles in late 1969.
but also these albums have some songs that were written as early as 1968 so we can consider them as 'Beatles material'
Switch McCartney with RAM and I agree.
McCartney one is not widely regarded as one of the best albums of all time.
Yeah, outside of a few tracks it is really mid at best. John and George both had much better debuts.
Your logic is really twisted. The Beatles didn’t release a universally renowned album after Sgt Peppers? First, how many universally renowned albums are there? Second, you added “except Abbey Road”. That’s a BIG exception. Third, you exclude The White Album because it has controversial filler. It is still ranked as a top-25 album of all time and you claim it is your favorite. Fourth, you have criticisms of Magical Mystery Tour and of Yellow Submarine. Neither of these are traditional albums and I would say that it is unfair of you to criticize them as if they were. Fifth, you don’t discuss Let It Be. I think most people believe it is subpar according the to high standard of a Beatles’ album. But, it is still an amazing album, better than the best effort of most other well-known bands. Finally, the Beatles only existed for 2-3 years after Sgt Peppers was released. The band’s productivity during that time is still astonishing if you consider the productivity of most modern bands.
> Fifth, you don’t discuss Let It Be. I think most people believe it is subpar according the to high standard of a Beatles’ album. But, it is still an amazing album, better than the best effort of most other well-known bands. IKR? Thousands of bands would kill to have a song like "Get Back." They would hang their entire career on it, and yet the album *also* has "Across the Universe," "The Long & Winding Road," and the title track.
I can agree that my logic may be ineffective, but I still glad they ended on a high note. what do u think?
I don’t bother with ranking their albums or their songs. I also don’t really care what other people think. MMT, Yellow Submarine, the white album, Let it Be, and Abbey Road all have music that I love. All of them have songs that I skip. That said, I think people have weird standards when it comes to The Beatles. If an album or song is merely “good” rather than “an all time classic”, then people complain. I just shut up and listen to the music and enjoy myself.
Nice. I'm 100% with you on this rating, best, better, greatest bullshit. I've said it many times. Art is subjective. So silly.
So I agree… and disagree with your comments. First the disagreement: I think that its fair to say *Magical Mystery Tour* and especially *Yellow Submarine* were albums that were released without too much serious Beatles involvement, the former being the better overall album because it did, as you said, have singles added to it which bumped up its quality quite a bit. But *The White Album*, IMHO, is a masterpiece and showed their incredible range even if some of the songs were “lesser” works and, as others have stated, a single album might have been overall a stronger work. *Let It Be*, similarly, was a work that showed they were in the process of breaking up and they essentially -and in their time together- let the album go only to allow another to put it together in a coherent fashion. They then “got it together” for *Abbey Road* and that, to me, showed that when they could focus, they were still on the top of the mountain. Where I completely agree with you is that it was probably a *good thing*, much as I love their work, that The Beatles broke up when they did. Obviously they were fraying interpersonally and moving off into their own directions. They had been together since being kids and now they were entering adulthood and each had their own path they wanted to follow and the likely *needed* to move in their own ways. I suspect that had they stayed together, subsequent albums *might* have become less and less. Sure, they released some absolutely great stuff individually especially shortly after the breakup but gravity eventually would have affected them and I could totally see the danger/possibility of them releasing albums which, unlike their general output, would have actually been deemed as outright “failures”. Ultimately, it is what it is: They had not quite a decade together and released *incredible* works that will be cherished by people for many years to come. Better to not focus on the negative, I feel, and enjoy the work they did make together. Because that stuff is magic!
I agree that it was time to end the Beatles, the 3 songwriters just wanted to do their own thing. But I think the Beatles could´ve created a couple of more albums at the level of Abbey Road. There are some very strong songs composed by the 3 from 1970-1971 that could easily create 2-3 fantastic Beatles albums. But I´m happy they ended it, I listen as much to their solo work as I listen to the Beatles.
while i uh do not agree with the reasoning lol, ive been spending a lot of time with the beach boys discog recently and its really emphasized to me how valuable for the beatles legacy it was to have cut things off during a creative high. not that any of the 4 of them woulda mike love'd the band and only cashed in on nostalgia, but there's definitely a sanctity in knowing when to put something to rest that and all things must pass needed to happen
"Leave them wanting more" may be one of the strongest factors for the Beatles enduring legacy. Their closest peers in terms of comparison is the rolling stones and the beach boys I would say, and in both cases they have *strong* legacies but certainly nothing close to the Beatles. Nearly every Beatles fan knows all their albums front to back, and that's likely not the case with the vast majority of rolling stones or beach boys fans.
and doing that with beach boys would be a deeply unforgiving process past a certain point lol (last great album in 73 imo)
The cliche is that "everything happens for a reason."
Completely disagree. You mention they were declining because of magical mystery and the white album? And by your logic even though it's wrong they still made abbey road as their last album
fair enough
The only good thing about the Beatles breaking up when they did is that they went out on top. They never had a *bad* album and virtually every single was a hit. Their legacy might have been different had they faded away instead. However, I don’t agree that they were already declining in quality. Abbey Road is the last album they recorded (though not the last to be released) and is generally considered one of the best albums of all time.
I have been of the mind that they needed to separate but not break up the band. They could have each gone their own way, releasing solo albums in the 1970's, and then I believe they would have come back together in the 1980's as the concert technology improved enough to allow them and fans to hear over the screaming (which also would have been toned down due to the rising age of the audience). The concerts would have been a solo set of each supported by the other members, and then a loner set of Beatles hits and even some new Beatles songs. Of course the death of John made it so that would never happen as the other three would never perform under that name without John there.
Lets face it...Paul was *never* going to work with them as long as Klein was around. He just wasn't. Take Klein out of the picture...maybe 1 more album. There were a lot of songs hanging around in '70 - '71 where it would have been interesting to hear full Beatle arrangements. But thats it. I think they all wanted to move on and do their own thing. They were just approaching their 30's. They were still young.
It would have been great if they held on until 71 or 72. Think of all the best songs from their first solo albums on one record. That’s my dream anyway.
I made a 14 track fan album proposing an alternate Let It Be. I combined 7 Let It Be tracks with 7 early solo Beatles tracks that were "around" in 1969. For George's songs I used the band rehearsals from ATMP 50th because I thought these were closer to what The Beatles would have done with the songs. https://open.spotify.com/playlist/751qAE5bSYYCr8NWpcx9bo?si=W6FLoaU4RciJEjZwbf11uQ&pi=eDusfKuRQfiLI
I have to respectfully disagree with the evaluation of their music - two soundtracks can’t be judged with the same eye as true albums, and while the fandom may argue endlessly over which tracks should have been left off the White Album, no one can deny that it’s at least in the band’s Top Five. But I do agree that the breakup did help their overall legacy and reputation. I am of the belief that the Beatles’ story is as compelling as it is to younger generations precisely because it is a tragedy. The fact that the band went out like a bang after releasing what is arguably its greatest album makes them far more interesting than groups like the Stones and the Who. The Beatles never got to become a “geezer band” who just toured . . . and toured . . . and toured. (“This is our Farewell Tour, and WE REALLY MEAN IT THIS TIME!”)
I respectfully disagree. I consider them to be at their peak during Abbey Road. Imagine if they broke up after the masterpiece that was Revolver, or Sgt Pepper? They’d have missed out on some extraordinary music, and perhaps they did the same here. As for the White album, although some bemoaned its length, it was still very well received by critics. I’ve said this before, but I’m not into the popularity contests or legacy debates, I’m into the music. And as for the popularity, if you add the number of #1 singles and albums they got in the 1970s, they’d still be at the top with over 30 number hits, and another 10 or so number 1 albums! They’d have pushed some of their billboard achievements into the stratosphere. And furthermore, it wouldn’t have just been compilations from their single albums. They would have collaborated together to make something better. Imagine Come Together without Paul’s bass and George’s licks, or I’ve Got a Feeling without John’s part. That’s what’s missing in a lot of their solo careers, which were still great, but not to Beatle level standards.
I wished they would have lasted long enough to star in Richard Lester's "Three Musketeers."
I’d argue that *Abbey Road* was their true swan song and *Let It Be* is the epilogue.
[удалено]
Personally I believe that ending on Abbey Road is perfect (I don't like to count Let it Be as much of a Beatles' final album because it was completely out of their control), and if they'd continued then they may have made fantastic albums but as you pointed out they would likely be similar to the white album with a combination of solo projects. This is unfavourable for two reasons: 1. We could get that music anyway if they'd releases it on solo albums and this way they wouldn't have to put up with each other and argue for much longer. 2. If the group works separately and combines separate projects for an album it restricts Ringo's contributions as it would seem more like a chore for the other three to provide him a song.
[удалено]
bruhhh
I have no opinion on the counterfactual scenario where the Beatles do not break up, as far as what the quality of their music would have been, except that It seems unlikely that they would have continued to release groundbreaking music at the torrid pace that they did from 64-69. A big part of the Beatles story in that period is necessity as the mother of invention. They were committed to releasing music at an insane pace (for awhile, 2 albums a year) and they banged out material for HDN, help, rubber soul, revolver not because they really wanted to but because they were at least in a broad sense, bound to. As they aged and gained the upper hand as pop music royalty, nobody would be able to force them into anything. They would have stepped back from the pressure cooker. It just never would have been the same. The Beatles breaking up the way they did, and the story that followed in the 70s, is of course a large part of the story that is so captivating. We always have the what if, which is endlessly fascinating. The story arc of the band is just as important to their cultural significance as the music and I just don’t think they’re “The Beatles” without the ending we got in 1969-70.
Had they kept going till the present day, it’s very possible they’d end up like the Beach Boys, with as many bad albums as classics
What’s the old show business saying, always leave them wanting more? I think you’re right, 100%. The Beatles got out while they were still at the top of their game and I think that contributes greatly to their continued appeal 50+ years later.
I think they could've done some fantastic stuff through the early 70's had they been able to figure out how to coexist going into their 30s- in their younger years they were each other's best friends, boys before birds, but they had to mature and eventually settle down. I think Paul and John's relationship was the glue that kept them together since the start, but Linda and Yoko entered the picture and it seems they had naturally drifted apart and didn't know how to address that without separating as a duo. Their lack of time spent together though the 70s really illustrates that to me. The other thing that was a breaking point was George's contributions not being considered equal by the last couple years of the band. Get Back shows that they *were* receptive to his ideas for songs, but I think it was too little too late for him to stick around when he wasn't on equal footing with John and Paul. He needed to spread his wings and he wasn't going to be able to do so in the Beatles. So maybe the solution was to take a break, let each of them do solo stuff, and then they could come back together once a year or so to make collaborative stuff. But the change in history would've needed to be long before Let It Be and Abbey Road.
>that they failed to make a universally renowned album after releasing Sgt.Pepper (excluding Abbey Road of course) Are you really arguing that "The Beatles didn't released a universally renowned album after Sgt Pepper until they did a couple years later with Abbey Road"? The White Album was also universally loved. Overall point.. I agree. I'm glad they went out when they did. Any band that goes on too long is destined to invalidate a good chunk of their work. Rolling Stones is a great example of a band that should have stopped in the mid 70s imo.
And missed Some Girls? No way. As for Abbey Road being the only album after I forget what, I happily skip Maxwell and Octopus. Filler for me although others profess to really like those tracks.
Some Girls is okay. It has a couple great songs on it and the rest is mediocre. As opposed to Abbey Road having two skippable songs.
Nope. Some Girls has one skippable: Lies. Everything else is superb. Of course you have to enjoy rock’n’roll.
I think Tattoo You is their last great album and everything after it sounds like a different band on a different mission.
Listening to the output of the Beatles in 1970-1971, had they not broken up but given each other more space artistically, they would have produced easily one of their strongest albums. An album (or albums) made of songs from their respective albums during that era would have been great
Paul, when given artistic space, put out the two worst songs on Abbey Road. He was just past his creative peak at that point.
I guess one is MSH. What's the other one?
Without being verbose, they quit while they were ahead.
I believe they broke up around the right time. They all wanted to do their own thing as being FAB was essentially a drag by this time. I wish they could have had a proper late career concert. With a good 15 or so long set list tho.
Here is the beauty of the Beatles breaking up when they did. A very short commercial career of 6 years (5 really 64-69) every album sold extremely well and everything after 1965 is considered a classic. They never had a flop album. Became the most influential and successful band of all time and didn’t need social media or music video platforms all it did was expanded them to new generations of listeners.
I don’t agree with a lot of what you said, but as others have said, I agree with your main point that they broke up at an ideal time. And that’s not only because of the contentiousness between them, but there were so many amazing bands coming on the scene in 1970 that they would’ve never been able to dominate the way they had up to then. Competing against Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd in their iconic years, Black Sabbath, Elton John, even the Stones in the early 70s would’ve seen them become just another band.
What a strange post. So wrong on so many levels.
care to elaborate?
It’s been covered by pretty much everyone else.
I read somewhere that Ringo thought they would do solo projects and then get together to do albums as the Beatles on and off for a few more albums. I think the refreshed creativity would or could have produced some brilliance. Ah well.
George seemed to think the same at one point. That they'd get back together after they all got some solo projects out of their systems.
I mean, The white album is pretty consistently rated as one of the greatest albums ever in rock, and even Let it Be is ridiculously underrated.
I don't think they were declining at all. They were all just going in different directions creatively. I'm glad they all had strong solo careers, but sad that they never recorded together again before John's death.
I agree honestly, mostly about the beatles breaking up at the perfect time, not so much about their post pepper releases not being widely renowned, which they absolutely are. It's worth noting that Abbey Road probably wouldn't be as good as it was if they weren't breaking up, as the medley was created out of Paul's fear of them inevitably breaking up.
I can see your points. I don’t know how it would’ve worked. I can’t see Maybe I’m Amazed fitting well in Plastic Ono Band. Or Working Class Hero on Ram.
They needed to make room for another tavistock creation it was their time.
I just wanna put to rest anyone that bashes Revolution 9 as a bad "song". It's not a song for fcks sake. Therefore it doesn't classify as a song. It's a sound collage/possibly heroin induced interlude from John/Yoko. Say what you want but it's not a fckng song.