Would The Beatles worked as a band in '70s?

[Derek]

I would really have to say...NO! Because when they were growing and maturing musicly and otherwise, THEY the members themselves became bigger than the Beatles. I was on Youtube and i saw a reply that sorta sumed it all up:
"In a way i'm happy the beatles broke up. they were all growing? and their musical tastes were changing for each of them. if they would have continued they would have had messy and distorted songs. and the best part of the Beatles is that they ended strong.
Let it Be was an amazing album to end on. Not many great bands end that strong. They'd usually slowly start making worse music."
Think of everything that happened in the 70s, Glam Rock, Folk Rock, Southern Rock, Disco, Punk. And on top of that other historical events that were happening like Watergate, Jimmy Carter, etc. and the movies were changing as well too like "The Godfather", "Jaws", Star Wars", etc. The Beatles, in a way, would be culteraly overwhelmed at it all. The Rolling Stones literally sold out to survive but The Beatles did the noble thing and just ended it with class.
The Beatles were meant to define the 60s, but they meant to define the 70s in another way, individualy, apart, they needed this and as painful for us fans when they "divorced", we needed it that way too.

[bungalobill]

Technically they ended on an even better album...Abbey Road...which is astonishing really...they produced something so good, and really couldn't stand each other.

On the other hand...I think they could have kept going if George had been doing solo albums sooner. Everyone knew a Beatle album was going to be mainly Lennon/McCartney tunes...I wish somebody had said back in 68....hey george...how many songs do you have? He would have probably been very happy with that...would have sold a ton of albums too....and still get his 2 songs per Beatle album. Then if you take the best 2 or 3 songs from each solo album that L/Mc did...put them on a Beatle album....minds and talents of all together with George Martin.....you get a pretty damned good album for years to come.

I mean....Beatles 1970 album?

Side One
Gimme Some Truth
It Don’t Come Easy
Every Night
All Things Must Pass
Child of Nature
Back Seat of My Car

Side Two
Instant Karma
Isn’t It A Pity?
Junk
Wah Wah
God
Maybe I’m Amazed

[Greg]

Hmmm...The following is just a collection of my opinions.  Not meant to be definitive.

The worst thing they did was to break up.  The best thing the did was to break up. 

If they could have gotten along and cooperated as a band I think they could have done very very well  (I guess that's painfully obvious isn't it Greg?).

There is no way they could have functioned as a band in the 70's.  They couldn't even get along, for the most part, living separate lives. 

A friend of mine has really thought out this concept, and I designed a site for his text and images and added it to my website:

http://www.beatlemoney.com/sliderindex.htm

[Derek]

Not to chang the subject, but as i mentioned The Rolling Stones, i often wondered how they continued on...EVEN NOW! (Cmon, guys, call it a career, already! GEEEEEEEZ!) I know they sold out, but were there other factors? It seems strange that the Stones continued and the Beatles didn't. But the Stones had some cheesy moments themselves, even some of their albums to this day sound very dated while the Beatles...very oppisette. So they're could be a "formula" here.
FYI: I think "Abbey Road" was a much better album too, a perfect "swansong". That particular poster just liked "Let It Be" more.

[bungalobill]

Oh yeah, I love Let It Be too...I mean, I've bought the stupid thing 3 times now. How could I resist? Great big shinny box presentation..with a book inside with tons of pictures. Of course as a young idiot, I pulled that book apart and put the pictures up on my wall. I wonder what that book is worth intact...duh!

[Paperback Writer]

Yeah;  A lot of us have had field days with "70's Beatles."  Greg thanks for the link to the various "album" covers of the 70's Beatles.

As far as the Stones, (Who et all) the mind-set in the 60's was that rock would not perpetuate into a long career.
So, given the Beatles individual differences, changes, personal growth and family factors, it was NOT a shock they broke up.  It was more surprising they took on the massive film-recording project of Let It Be and the recorded the brilliant Abbey Road.

I think, when the 60's bands (and individual Beatles) saw the 70's not surpass their music - and given a waiting market they created - said why not?

[Derek]

Hmmm...The following is just a collection of my opinions.  Not meant to be definitive.

The worst thing they did was to break up.  The best thing the did was to break up. 

If they could have gotten along and cooperated as a band I think they could have done very very well  (I guess that's painfully obvious isn't it Greg?).

There is no way they could have functioned as a band in the 70's.  They couldn't even get along, for the most part, living separate lives. 

A friend of mine has really thought out this concept, and I designed a site for his text and images and added it to my website:

http://www.beatlemoney.com/sliderindex.htm

I can't find the track listing for the second album "Hot as Sun"or "With The Quarrymen Quartet".
LOL, i LOVE the "Buy The Farm" cover art!

[EddieV]

I have this idea of what they should have done

In 1967, when Brian Epstein died, they should have agreed on it was ok to release solo albums!! Maybe only record an album every second year.

I´m not sure that they could have remained their popularity in 1970.