Would a 1970 Beatles album have been their greatest work? Aka higher level Fab 4 discussion

YellowSnow

One of my favorite classic rock counterfactual history topics is what would would have a late 1970 Bealtes album looked like – if they hadn’t broken up – and would it have been one of their greatest? Keep in mind that “Let it Be” in spite of its May 1970 release date, really was an early 1969 recording. “Abbey Road” should correctly be considered the last Beatles album.

Likely tracks that would have made the cut in or particular order:

John

“Instant Karma”
“Mother”
“Working Class Hero”
“God” or “Hold On”

Paul

“Maybe I’m Amazed”
“Every Night”
“Another Day”

George

“Isn’t it a Pitty”
“My Sweet Lord”
“What is Life”
“Let it Roll”

Ringo

“It Don’t Come Easy”

I think a strong case could be made that top 6 or 7 of this bunch might have made it their best album ever. John and George’s solo 1969-70 work was certainly stronger than Paul’s and he would have been willing to give George more than the usual space for 2 songs to make it work. Also, I think John and Paul would have had to convince Paul to let Phil Spector produce the entire album (not likely that he would have consented).

Discuss. If you don’t like the Beatles, remember that happiness is a warm, yes it is, gun.

WilburHooksHands

Hot and off-topic taek: the Beatles greatest work begins and ends with "Tomorrow Never Knows." The fact that they made that in the 60's on analog technology is truly revolutionary.

YellowSnow

WilburHooksHands said:

Hot and off-topic taek: the Beatles greatest work begins and ends with "Tomorrow Never Knows." The fact that they made that in the 60's on analog technology is truly revolutionary.

Many would argue that Revolver was their greatest achievement. It certainly was their greatest leap forward in the studio...more than Pepper I think.

Swaye

I don't understand what's happening.

YellowSnow

Swaye said:

I don't understand what's happening.

Huh. For a group that recorded a fair bit of Indian influenced music, I though you'd have mor chinterest.

Swaye

I like Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds.

YellowSnow

Swaye said:

I like Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds.

89ute

I started thinking about this because it's a great question ... but now I'm pissed off and teary eyed because some fuckhead killed Lennon.

DerekJohnson

Let it Be was the first Beatles album I ever owned. I was around ten years old. I wasn't that into it at the time though.

Don't forget The Ballad of Sir Frankie Crisp as one of George's.

YellowSnow

DerekJohnson said:

Let it Be was the first Beatles album I ever owned. I was around ten years old. I wasn't that into it at the time though.

Don't forget The Ballad of Sir Frankie Crisp as one of George's.

It's on the list. I like to call it "Let it Roll". It's what I do.

YellowSnow

DerekJohnson said:

Let it Be was the first Beatles album I ever owned. I was around ten years old. I wasn't that into it at the time though.

Don't forget The Ballad of Sir Frankie Crisp as one of George's.

"Let it Be" was a great record compared to what most any other rock group of the era put out. Just wasn't on par with any of their post Rubber Soul work. It's kind of like comparing "It's only Rock and Roll" to "Exile" or "Sticky Fingers".

Lennon though it was a POS though.

PurpleThrobber

The Beatles suck.

Take that to the higher discussion board.

SUCK, I say.

YellowSnow

PurpleThrobber said:

The Beatles suck.

Take that to the higher discussion board.

SUCK, I say.

chuck

I'm not much of a fan of anything Paul did post Beatles though I only know a small percentage of what he recorded.

You could compile a greatest hits of the 70s from John and George and blow anything the Beatles did as a group out of the water in terms of sheer # of great songs. I think those two, especially Lennon, kept Paul from going too light hearted and goofy. Paul kept Lennon a little more grounded and his music a little more consistently listenable since he couldn't let Paul be the only one producing #1 hits.. Keep them all together for another decade and I'm pretty sure they would have kept doing great things as a group.

RaceBannon

chuck said:

I'm not much of a fan of anything Paul did post Beatles though I only know a small percentage of what he recorded.

You could compile a greatest hits of the 70s from John and George and blow anything the Beatles did as a group out of the water in terms of sheer # of great songs. I think those two, especially Lennon, kept Paul from going too light hearted and goofy. Paul kept Lennon a little more grounded and his music a little more consistently listenable since he couldn't let Paul be the only one producing #1 hits.. Keep them all together for another decade and I'm pretty sure they would have kept doing great things as a group.

There was a joke back in the day

Who were the Beatles?

The band Paul played in before Wings

By 1970 no one listened to the Beatles. Done. Finished. Kaput

chuck

RaceBannon said:

chuck said:

I'm not much of a fan of anything Paul did post Beatles though I only know a small percentage of what he recorded.

You could compile a greatest hits of the 70s from John and George and blow anything the Beatles did as a group out of the water in terms of sheer # of great songs. I think those two, especially Lennon, kept Paul from going too light hearted and goofy. Paul kept Lennon a little more grounded and his music a little more consistently listenable since he couldn't let Paul be the only one producing #1 hits.. Keep them all together for another decade and I'm pretty sure they would have kept doing great things as a group.

There was a joke back in the day

Who were the Beatles?

The band Paul played in before Wings

By 1970 no one listened to the Beatles. Done. Finished. Kaput

Perhaps because they didn't exist by 1970? Paul post 1970 was featherweight, easy listening shit...which is why he was more popular than the others. George and John both put out better or at least more interesting music after the breakup than they did as Beatles.

YellowSnow

RaceBannon said:

chuck said:

I'm not much of a fan of anything Paul did post Beatles though I only know a small percentage of what he recorded.

You could compile a greatest hits of the 70s from John and George and blow anything the Beatles did as a group out of the water in terms of sheer # of great songs. I think those two, especially Lennon, kept Paul from going too light hearted and goofy. Paul kept Lennon a little more grounded and his music a little more consistently listenable since he couldn't let Paul be the only one producing #1 hits.. Keep them all together for another decade and I'm pretty sure they would have kept doing great things as a group.

There was a joke back in the day

Who were the Beatles?

The band Paul played in before Wings

By 1970 no one listened to the Beatles. Done. Finished. Kaput

I wasn't alive in 1970 and have to defer to the elder statesman on this one. I can envision them not being as hip as the new acts that launched in 1969/70 or even the Stones who had just returned to touring and were hitting their peak. But Abbey Road and Let it Be were both #1 chart toppers around the world so someone was still buying their records.

RaceBannon

chuck said:

RaceBannon said:

chuck said:

I'm not much of a fan of anything Paul did post Beatles though I only know a small percentage of what he recorded.

You could compile a greatest hits of the 70s from John and George and blow anything the Beatles did as a group out of the water in terms of sheer # of great songs. I think those two, especially Lennon, kept Paul from going too light hearted and goofy. Paul kept Lennon a little more grounded and his music a little more consistently listenable since he couldn't let Paul be the only one producing #1 hits.. Keep them all together for another decade and I'm pretty sure they would have kept doing great things as a group.

There was a joke back in the day

Who were the Beatles?

The band Paul played in before Wings

By 1970 no one listened to the Beatles. Done. Finished. Kaput

Perhaps because they didn't exist by 1970? Paul post 1970 was featherweight, easy listening shit...which is why he was more popular than the others. George and John both put out better or at least more interesting music after the breakup than they did as Beatles.

Maybe you're too young for classic rock but you didn't have to exist to get airtime well into the 90's

RaceBannon

Speaking of classic rock -

When we were meeting the Beatles in the early 60's in the living room my mom would bring up Frank Sinatra

We'd go he's decades old. You'll never catch us still listening to acts that old

YellowSnow

RaceBannon said:

Speaking of classic rock -

When we were meeting the Beatles in the early 60's in the living room my mom would bring up Frank Sinatra

We'd go he's decades old. You'll never catch us still listening to acts that old

Sounds like your mother had good taste in music. Frank was still putting out good records in the mid 60's too.

YellowSnow

chuck said:

I'm not much of a fan of anything Paul did post Beatles though I only know a small percentage of what he recorded.

You could compile a greatest hits of the 70s from John and George and blow anything the Beatles did as a group out of the water in terms of sheer # of great songs. I think those two, especially Lennon, kept Paul from going too light hearted and goofy. Paul kept Lennon a little more grounded and his music a little more consistently listenable since he couldn't let Paul be the only one producing #1 hits.. Keep them all together for another decade and I'm pretty sure they would have kept doing great things as a group.

I think they still would have split up by the early 70's, regardless. Just too many creative differences. But there's no question John and Paul were better in a group than outside of one. John didn't really have many good songs post Imagine (1971) and Paul left to his own devices, was a lightweight, indeed.