1. Please take 30 seconds to register your free account to remove most ads, post topics, make friends, earn reward points at our store, and more!  

What if the Beatles had made another album?

Discussion in 'Miscellaneous [BG]' started by heroincredible, Sep 12, 2008.

  1. What if the Beatles had made another album? Which songs (likely from their solo careers) would make it onto the album?

    I imagine it might look something like this

    Side 1:
    "Instant Karma"
    "My Sweet Lord"
    "Maybe I'm Amazed"
    "It Don't Come Easy"
    "Another Day"
    "I Dig Love"
    "Working Class Hero"

    Side 2:
    "Bangla Desh"
    "Smile Away"
    "Art Of Dying"
    "Stand By Me"
    "Long Haired Lady"
  2. Ya but it might also include Ebony and Ivory.......just sayin'
  3. JimK


    Dec 12, 1999
    I doubt it.

    Heroin's 2-cd list is comprised of tunes from each of the four's debut solo albums.
    Maybe Harrison's "Not Guilty" should be in there, too (a 'White Album" track that didn't make the cut...can be heard on Anthology 3).

    No doubt, All Things Must Pass contained a few songs that coulda/woulda made the next Beatles' album.

  4. Not a Beatles fan so I didn't realize the tunes were from the debut solo albums.....
  5. Deluge Of Sound

    Deluge Of Sound Banned

    Nov 8, 2007
    I'd rather just leave it as it... All Things Must Pass is easily the best post-beatles record released by the Fab Four.

    I mean, Wings? Plastic Ono Band?? C'mon, no competition.
  6. By the end, they all hated each other. I reckon that would have bled into another album.
  7. Phalex

    Phalex Semper Gumby Supporting Member

    Oct 3, 2006
    G.R. MI
    The first of several "other" Beatles albums:


    Fooled me anyway!
  8. GregC

    GregC Johnny and Joe Gold Supporting Member

    Jan 19, 2007
    LOL! I remember that, a lot of folks (and some magazines) really believed it (or wanted to). Abbey Road was the perfect ending, to me. I do agree with heroincredible's choices.
  9. A really interesting thing to ponder! Kudos to you, heroincredible!

    I like your idea of taking what they each did outside of the Beatles and comprising a "new" Beatles album and I agree with what you did.

    But I also feel that the collaborative relationship they had - as dysfunctional as it was - tended to yield better results with regard to the finished songs than what each player did alone. I've always felt that George Harrison's Beatles era stuff was way ahead of it's time and way underrated. Each time I listen to Revolver, I am blown away by how current/timeless his songs are.

    Lennon/McCartney - McCartney/Lennon - or Lennon + Paul's input and McCartney + John's input almost always resulted in a song that was bigger than the sum of it's parts. While I like both John's and Paul's solo stuff and can clearly hear each one's influence on the other's songs - I feel what they did apart was never quite as good as what they did together - whatever "together" means.

    Further, I've really grown to respect John Lennon's songwriting style. I'd always enjoyed Paul's, but I think that's because Paul's songs are less 'heady' and more 'fun' or even superficial and were 'easier' to listen to in general. The more my tastes mature, the more I see how really great John Lennon's songwriting was even if it is a little harder to initially consume.

    All-in-all, I think if they could have survived their ego clashes and other dysfunctional relationship fallout, they would have continued to turn out music that was significantly larger than the sum of it's parts.
  10. jomahu


    Dec 15, 2004
    Bos, MA
    obviously, it would have been a disco album.
  11. Philbiker

    Philbiker Pat's the best!

    Dec 28, 2000
    Northern Virginia, USA
    GREAT record!!!
  12. tycobb73


    Jul 23, 2006
    Grand Rapids MI
    I think by the end of it them collbaborating was over so maybe the OP is right.
  13. Good point. My "dream" was that the dysfunctional thing didn't happen and they continued to do as they did before they fell out of favor with each other.

    I agree, though. I think the OP got it as close to right as anyone could.
  14. Jared Lash

    Jared Lash Born under punches

    Aug 21, 2006
    Denver, CO
    I think part of what made them a good team was that Paul reeled John in from some of his more out there, avant-garde tendencies and John kept Paul from getting too sappy. It was a nice balance. It certainly appears that way based on some of their solo stuff.

    I love George Harrison's songs too. My favorite Beatle.
  15. Bob Lee (QSC)

    Bob Lee (QSC) In case you missed it, I work for QSC Audio! Commercial User

    Jul 3, 2001
    Costa Mesa, Calif.
    Technical Communications Developer, QSC Audio
    I'm fortunate to have met and hung out a bit with Ken Scott, who engineered the white album and others (as well as "All Things Must Pass"). He said that the stories of the Beatles hating each other aren't actually true. They still worked together in the studio a lot and had some fun together, but as they were growing in different directions, also annoyed each other a lot. Sometimes McCartney would be working on something in one studio and Lennon would go into an unused studio and listen in, and then make comments, often acerbic, witty,and/or droll, over the intercom.
  16. Lazylion

    Lazylion Goin ahead on wit my bad self!

    Jan 25, 2006
    Frederick MD USA
    Big +1 to both of you. It's amazing that they accomplished what they did, especially later on, given the unimaginable pressure of their fame.
    I read somewhere that Paul's presentation or "vibe" could be stated as "Here I am, please love me!" and John's was "Here I am, you can love me or not, whatever." Interesting way to look at it...
  17. Sneckumhaw


    Apr 26, 2006
    I thought Plastic Ono Band was pretty money- but, yeah, not up there with my main man George.
  18. StyleOverShow

    StyleOverShow Still Playing After All These Years Gold Supporting Member

    May 3, 2008
    Hillsdale, Portland
    Beatles were lucky bastards. The whole was greater than the sum of the parts.
    For me, the music and lyrics were good, pop but okay.
    On a board like this, to be discussing them, that is passing the "test of time" with flying colours (in honour of the Brits).

    The Kinks, for instance, were way better players, IMO.
  19. Howlin' Hanson

    Howlin' Hanson Lighter cabs, please.

    Sep 3, 2007
    Austin TX
    And The Beach Boys were better singers. <ducking>

  20. I agree with you on the Beatles standing the test of time. As for the Kinks (who I also enjoy) being better players; That's a little more subjective. I feel the appearance of "simplicity" in the music the Beatles put out betrays its reality. While the overall feel of many of the Beatles' tunes is light, simple and easy to consume, the reality is that each musician (Ringo included) played some amazing parts most of the time.

    I won't get into comparing Ray and Dave Davies' guitar playing with John's or George's (or Paul's - But Paul's bass parts are head and shoulders beyond anything John Dalton or Pete Quaife did [no offense to Messrs Dalton and Quaife - just my opinion]) - but for me, the breadth and diversity of the Beatles' catalog with regard to style, energy, and versatility speaks volumes about their ability to not only write, but to play at an amazing level.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.