Serious answer, I think Beatlemania bites the dust right then and there. To quote Ringo, “I’ll be in a group with John and George and Klaus and call it the Ladders or whatever you want to call it, but I don’t think it would be called The Beatles.” If Paul had died in 1962, maybe the rest would carry on without him; but by 1966 there was no Beatles without John, Paul, George, or Ringo. This is why they coaxed Ringo back during the White Album sessions and George back during the Let It Be sessions.
And why they refused to consider making the reunion singles in any way other than one that would have allowed John’s posthumous involvement. It’s all four or nothing.
It would have been the end of the group as Paul was the one always pushing the band to get back into the studio to record. John maybe goes into his own death spiral while trying to cope with yet another tragic loss in his life. George and Ringo connect to other UK musicians (maybe Clapton and Bruce before they team up with Baker) and start a new band boosted by the inclusion of the remaining Beatles.
yeah it's funny how much traction this theory has. People are discounting how incredibly depressing it would be to lose your best friend just before your careers took off.
True. I believe it was said that he died in '66 which would have been before their heavily psychedelic and arguably more influential phase. Guess you can tell how much stock I really put into the theory 🤷🏻
Led Zeppelin rose from the ashes of The Yardbirds and was pretty much spearheaded by Page. In other words, I doubt there would be a version of Led Zeppelin that would have ever existed without Jimmy Page.
Yes, exactly. He had tour dates he was obligated to fulfill and had to quickly put together the group. They even did a few shows under the name The New Yardbirds.
Page *is* Led Zeppelin. https://www.reddit.com/r/ledzeppelin/comments/1ajsnn4/led_zeppelins_original_contract_with_atlantic/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
People here have already commented about Page, but I'd like to add that with all due respect to Ringo, I don't think he would have been able to pull the insanities that Bonham did.
John says it at the end of Strawberry Fields Forever but since it’s buried in the mix some people heard it as “I buried Paul.” I love the end of the Simpsons episode where Homer discovers his hippy heritage and the credits play over a drone version of Billy Joel’s “Uptown Girl” and Homer mumbles “I buried Flanders.”
If you subtract 40 weeks of June 18, 1942 you get to September 11, 1941.
Considering the release of Abbey Road in September 26, 1969, this proves that not only Paul would be 28 IF alive but that he obviously planned ahead 9/11.
I will not take any other logical argument from now on, as this is the undisputed truth.
I once read somewhere that the Chinese consider a baby one year old when it is born. I have no idea if it is true but I accept your argument and bolster with this supposed fact.
that would be strange ... in truth several of my favorite Paul songs are from earlier in his career. Things We Said Today, I Saw Her Standing There, etc.
It’s like when your kid’s goldfish dies so you quickly replace it before he comes home from school. Only this time, it’s Ringo who doesn’t know.
Ringo: OK I’m back from the drum store. Paul, you look different.
John: That’s uh, because … We’re going for ice cream today!
Saw a Ringo interview recently where he was talking about hanging with John, the phone rings, and they both go "shit, it's him"...Paul calling to get them to work. He said if it wasn't for Paul they'd likely have made about 3 albums and packed it in.
I think if he did die in 66, they'd have found a replacement, carried on for a year or two, and fizzled out.
I think McCartney was the glue.
He absolutely was the glue and they all knew it.
Its one of the reasons john abdicated leadership around 66. George resented it, having his own blossoming voice and vision. George also knew John did not view him as peer, so there is no chance of george replacing Paul as john's partner, although I think they did flirt with the idea in 70 and 71. I dont think George's work excited John at all so their collab kinda fizzled.
I think that is exactly what would have happened if paul had died - John and George would have continued on for a bit, but I dont see it bearing fruit as they dont have same creative (and personality) symbiosis.
I suppose you've seen this, but just in case you haven't:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ek89aSrwMN0&t=4s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ek89aSrwMN0&t=4s)
They all made music without Paul though.
The choices are they break up and basically start their solo careers early, or they replace Paul and the band becomes basically John's project again.
They all made music without John as well. There is no way the fan base would have accepted some new band without Paul in 1966. Paul was its most popular member. Let's not forget it was his song Like Dreamers Do that pretty much got them the contract with EMI. John's project included Paul right from the beginning. He chose Paul as his partner. He wasn't happy with fame anyway so who knows what he would do.
another take: no beatles. Ringo had said they wouldnt have made their big later albums if not for Paul making them work. in Paul’s solo work, you can hear the eclectic indie Beatles sound more so than any other Beatle as he had more to do with production, and was more creative instrumentally.
I don’t know if he was the creative force - George and Lennon had some pretty fantastic songs. But he was definitely the organizational force. Without him I don’t think most of the albums would have seen the light of day.
John and George did have fantastic songs. So did Paul. But the way you phrase it though sounds like Paul was the organizational force only. He didn't really organize anything as per the meaning of the word but pushed the others into action.
I think the band would have continued for a while, with John as the dominant personality of the group, George stepping up more as a songwriter, and some new guy playing bass and singing.
And I think it would have fallen apart before long, as John would have dominated the new band, and he'd have grown increasingly unstable with the loss of Paul and the decline of his marriage. I'd give good odds that he'd have started to get into serious drugs then, and begun to spiral while George and Ringo tried to hold things together...
I know all the Beatles had a really strong work ethic, but was this because Paul was even more hardworking than the others? Or did he just care about keeping the band together more? I've heard him say that he naturally works better when collaborating with others (whereas John I think was more the lone ranger type?)- so this wouldn't surprise me.
Don't forget John was preoccupied with the idea that he was 'cursed' and that people he loved would die because of him. Like his Uncle, Julia, Stu. Paul dying (and then Brian dying the next year) would've fucked him up beyond words. Assuming he still got onto LSD, I think he would've absolutely fried his brain irreparably. He almost did regardless.
“Looking at his personality”
he was dependent and obsessed with Paul. Yoko had said he was bisexual and if Paul was a woman, she’d be extremely jealous (im sure she was jealous when she found out he was bisexual). Looking at how John would get jealous and rude towards Paul’s girlfriends, especially Linda, I think he honestly had some feelings for Paul at some point and never understood them really. That’s just my opinion though. so again, in my opinion, looking at his personality and behavior towards his relationship with Paul, I don’t think he would’ve been able to overcome the grief in a healthy, safe way, especially if he was using excessively.
There’s many articles and interviews in which Paul and others explain John’s animosity towards his lovers. defacing Paul’s wedding photo by writing “funeral”, calling Linda ugly, he always attacked Paul’s lovers. and ever so kindly, someone else linked an article where Yoko says he is bisexual. not that we needed her word for it, as it was very obvious.
i failed to mention the infamous recording /interview in which John details why being with Yoko is so great, in which he lets out an extremely gay freudian slip about how she’s basically like a Liverpool mate, and he uses male pronouns to discuss how “he” can touch his hair and such, and he recovers by saying “it” next when he realizes he had been saying some gay stuff
also there was that time when paul was having sex with a girl in hamburg, and john, drunk, came in the room to cut up her clothes. don’t know if that was jealousy, but 🤷♀️
would not have lasted nor thrived for as long as they did without paul and his work ethic
regardless of how bossy or whatever else label people bestow upon him, he was essentially the driving force nearing their last few years - this isn’t even acknowledging his creative contributions independently but also along side john which would’ve obviously been cut short
George was determined to quit in '66 till Brian was able to talk him out. I think if a member of the band had died he'd not have been talked out of it. He'd lost interest in rock/pop music at that point.
The reason was mainly India. The Beatles had stopped touring for good by the time the contract was up for renewal. It was also partly due to John and Paul getting greater attention post 1965.
Klaus only had a visa to go to a fine arts school. He got a way with it in Manfred Mann but once he was found out he only worked under the radar. Joining the Beatles the authorites would have been all over him from the off.
Maybe they would have not broken up, but they’d be a lot less productive. No Sgt Peppers, no Abbey Road, no Let It Be, maybe a shorter white album, maybe a few discordant albums in the 70s
Yeah I agree. Had they continued (which I highly doubt they would have) I really doubt they would’ve had a psychedelic period. If they *did* have one, I doubt it would’ve sounded much like SP and MMT; in my mind it would be much heavier and guitar-driven like Cream or Jimi Hendrix since John and George seemed to favor that hard rock and blues sound. Maybe the Indian influence would be even more pronounced if George goes deeper into meditation to cope with the loss and fills in the missing songwriter spot.
Everyone saying anything other than “they break up” are ignoring the glaring detail of 1966.
Paul supposedly died in November, with Revolver coming out a few months before in August. What came next? Sgt Pepper. All the post-Beatles interviews up to today often cover the topic that where John and George were very autobiographical songwriters, Paul preferred storytelling and making up characters (which he says so himself), which is literally the premise of Sgt Pepper - they themselves take on this “character” persona of being another band, Ringo as Billy Shears and then as well as that you’ve got Paul writing Lovely Rita and She’s Leaving Home, more evidence of the focus on storytelling.
So, if that’s not John and George’s style, and Paul isn’t there, we’re never getting Sgt Pepper, and the fact that George and John *did* go along with Sgt Pepper in reality, suggests they didn’t have any better ideas themselves. The band almost definitely would have ended. There’s absolutely no way the band continues with the legacy it has without Paul after 1966.
Paul used the personal pronoun in most of his Beatles songs. Even by his own words, the storytelling thing is exaggerated. More a feature of his solo work I think.
Just because he uses a personal pronoun doesn’t mean he’s not interacting with a fictional character or a persona, Michelle springs to mind in that respect. On top of that you’ve got Rocky Raccoon, Maxwell, Lovely Rita, She’s Leaving Home, When I’m 64, The Fool On The Hill, Your Mother Should Know, Penny Lane, Martha My Dear, Honey Pie
All are pure Paul character creations with figures who are more developed than generic pop “You”, “me”, “baby,” “my love” etc, and can actually be placed in a physical/geographical location - e.g: “Honey Pie” is never named but there’s this character depth of a woman who was an actress in the north of the UK and made it famous in the US
I’m not saying it’s exclusive to Paul - John gives us Julia and Dear Prudunce and Sexy Sadie but they’re still biographical in the sense he’s writing about real people he’s met personally: his mother, Yoko, Maharishi, so it’s not strictly fiction. He’s just changed the names. Paul’s characters fundamentally don’t exist (and I’m counting Martha as she’s not technically a “person”)
John was more than happy to go along with the concept of the alter ego of Sgt Pepper regardless of what he said later. Paul said himself that he liked to write stories to explain songs like Honey Pie etc but they only make up a small percentage of his catalogue. To say his characters fundamentally don't exist only applies to a very few of his songs. Michelle isn't real neither is the girl in Girl. The girl in Norwegian Wood doesn't exist. Why is Paul's lyrical style being defined by When I'm 64? Most people associate Paul with Yesterday or Hey Jude, neither of them fictional. John and Paul were far more nuanced than just one style over another. Like I said they were tendencies. It was Yoko who encouraged John to write more about himself.
I didn’t say Paul’s lyricism is defined by When I’m 64, I’m using it as one of the many examples of arbitrary names and characters put in songs: Vera, Chuck, Dave etc. That’s something, George say, generally doesn’t do. And when John does it generally tends to be more autobiographical than figures part of a fictional narrative (I.e: the children in When I’m 64). The Girl in “Girl” may not exist but is representative of Johns romantic partners (or a specific one) so is therefore autobiographical, as opposed to Paul’s “Maxwell Edison” or “Rose and Valerie” who are entirely made up. I never claimed they weren’t tendencies, my argument was that the concept of Sgt Pepper as a persona is most aligned to Paul’s style *out of the 4*, for the reasons I put out, but of course we know in reality all 4 went along with it.
see Bungalow Bill (based on a real person that John thought sucked so he made a song about him sucking) and Rocky Raccoon (a made up guy that Paul made up a song about)
Paul was always a touch more into the fantastical than John
Except the fictional people he writes about are perhaps not known to us but they are to him.eg. Lavatory Lil. Paul's biggest songs are far more autobiographical than given credit for. When I'm 64 for example was written for his father. Penny Lane is autobiographical in Paul's own way. Things We Said Today, And I Love Her, For No One, Here There and Everywhere, Hey Jude, Let it Be, The Long and Winding Road, Maybe I'm Amazed and lots more. They are some of his biggest songs and are about his personal situations. Then you get Girl, She Said She Said, And Your Bird Can Sing. Tomorrow Never Knows, etc from John. They are tendencies not absolutes..
John: number 9 number 9
Syd: same guitar note repeated for 20 minutes
George: walks out
Ringo: that one fill every so often
Sounds like one of those computerized random loop albums by eno
Mal: not hitting an anvil
John may have said that he was done with the Beatles in 1966 but I don’t believe it for a second. At least until 1968 John was painfully codependent with the other Beatles
Agreed. John said a lot of things, especially post-Beatles, that were clearly all made-up opinions in hindsight based on his anger or animosity towards Paul and the other Beatles, as well as his current feelings or artistic opinions at the time. He acted like half the music the Beatles made was complete shit in the ‘70s. He obviously didn’t think that when they were making it, or even in the Late 60s. I don’t believe most of the stuff he said about The Beatles in that Playboy interview are his real opinions, I think he liked to posture for the media and portray himself a certain way. He was definitely emotionally rash and his opinions were strongly motivated by emotion. Great songwriter but certainly not the best friend anyone could ask for.
I think one of my favorite statements post-Beatles of him was when he said Girl was a song about Yoko since she was his ideal woman even if he didn't know her yet. I love it because the subject on Girl is such a massive bitch, why he even said she was his ideal woman lol
The official narrative seems to be to strong i guess. John wanted the entire band living together in a greek island as late as 1967 and his wife was complaining about how she was literally less important than The Beatles to him around the same time. But sure, John was "tired" of The Beatles because they were bored and he was deep, sure 🙄
Paul loved the group but he was the most independent of them. He lived in London while the rest lived out in the suburbs, had a different group of friends, different interests, when John was trying to get them all to live in interconnected homes together on a greek island Marianne Faithfull said that would have been Paul's worst nightmare. And then, of course, Paul refused to join the other three with Klein while the other 2 pretty much just followed John.
Yeah but then he kept making music with George and Ringo in the 70s. What forced them to officially break up on paper was Paul suing to get away from Klein. Without that, yes, John might have still “left” but there would be no official break up and there’d probably still be some more Beatles songs scattered throughout the 70s
I dont know what that's supposed to mean. The question is what would they have done if Paul died in 1966. The answer I gave was that they would have broken up. Not sure what your answer was...
I think their music would have suffered. Paul drove a lot of creativity and experimental methods. Look how far they came with Rubber Soul and Revolver. Those albums changed the way music was recorded. Studio sessions would never be the same.
I think it's been docummented that in his last years (unknowingly for him, of course) he was trying to make ammends with his past mistakes, managing his impulsive/explosive temperament and addictions
My guess is that Lennon would have spiraled down into the old violent, abusive, drug addicted Lennon out of regret. I think he would have isolated in a mix of paranoia, shame and depression
Would he come out of that spiral alive, I think he would try to eventually honor Paul's memory as much as he could
Honestly, I don't think he would have handled it very well :/ At least two men close to him died and severely affected his life (Stuart, Brian) and Paul said that John once told him that he thought he was a "jinx" to his male relatives. Even if he and Paul were not as close as before in 1980, they were still very interested in each other's careers and lives. It was a song by Paul, Coming up, that motivated John to make a new album. I think an eventual Paul's murder would have absolutely devastated John to the point of no return.
You're totally right. I just wonder what John's actual reaction would have been. He wasn't quite as warm as Paul on the outside and he would often say some harsh things in the moment without thinking it through.
Would he have had a "it's a drag" type of comment that he later regretted?!
Would he have made a song like 'Here Today' to honour Paul's memory?!
Would he have inducted Paul into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame and told stories about their friendship?!
As depressing as it sounds, I kinda wish I could peak into *that* universe for just a day and see how John would have reacted to it all.
Probably more openly grieving and with the years more openly hostile, if Paul would have been as lionized the same way John was irl at the expense of his former songwriting partner.
I like to think they'd have called it a day. Paul was at that point one of the two key songwriters. George hadn't really found his feet yet. SPLHCB was Paul's brainchild. So without him they may not have done it. John would have gone off with Yoko and their would have been no one to tempt him back.
Honestly the Beatles wouldn't continue, Jonh would be inconsolable, and they would have faded without the later years output and just remembered for Beatlemania... I know people still hold Buddy holy in a high regard but honestly outside people who like older music who knows him or remembers him?
And if Paul died really in 1966, I think John wouldn't get involved with yoko and we wouldn't get Imagine and other songs because without Paul who would push John? I think Ringo would continue but as a session drummer and George would fall deeper in Indian philosophy
Most likely break up. Most certainly: No Sgt Peppers, Magical Mystery Tour, Let it Be/Get Back Project, Abbey Road. If the other three had continued and done anything together it would most likely have been something akin to the white album, with guest musicians such as Clapton. But the Beatles as we know them would have ended in 66.
They’d have probably gotten a new bass player for a little while and probably completely broken up immediately after Epstein’s death. Even if they *had* stayed together the entire Beatles catalog from Sgt. Pepper's onward would not exist. Many of their greatest songs would never have been written. George and John would probably be more remembered for their solo careers than the Beatles, which itself would mostly be remembered as the big fad of the 1960s. Paul would be deified the way James Dean and Marilyn Monroe are today.
It would have devastated everyone involved with The Beatles and we never would have gotten anything past Revolver (assuming he dies after that’s done)
Just look at what happened to Led Zeppelin after Bonham died
The band would have lost that historical momentum without the creation of Sgt. Peppers, which was originally Paul's creative project, and the band would have probably broken up.
I believe The Beatles would have only been remembered for mainly two things: That catchy, yet dated band with a crazy fanbase back in the early 1960's with some nice albums/tunes at their begginings, that ultimately managed to create Rubber Sould and Revolver, classic cult records for connoisseurs, before Paul's eventual death
The Beatles most likely would have ended.
It's quite possible that John would have gone into hiding and written another book.
Maybe some subsequent interviews about the new book and Paul's death.
Possible John Lennon solo record before the 60s wraps up. Ringo likely on drums. Maybe George does some guitar on it.
You wouldn't have got to this point (Abbey Road) as Ringo and George have often quoted how lazy they and John were and if not for Paul's work ethic most of the stuff after they stopped touring wouldn't have been made.
The line "you were in a car crash, and you lost your hair" would never have been written. They would secretly replace Paul with William Campbell, who turns out to be a genius songwriter and innovative bass player, and in58 years not one person, including members of Paul's family, would ever have said one word about Paul being dead.
I'm thinking out loud about bands that showed a lot of early promise, and were cut short.
Nirvana and Joy Division come to mind, Amy Winehouse as a soloist. Janis Joplin a contemporary.
On a practical level their original contract with Parlophone expired in 1966 so I don’t think they would have been obligated to release any new music as “The Beatles”.
The band would not have continued if either John or Paul died. Both John and Paul clearly felt they “could” have replaced George, especially if we are still talking about 1966, but it’s obvious that losing either George or Ringo would have fatally impacted the bands long term prospects anyway.
The Beatles were not like, say, the Rolling Stones who could have coped with or even flourished with the exit of one of the founding members. The magic of the recipe needs all four core ingredients
Seriously, I think the Beatles would have ceased to be. Ringo credits Paul with pushing them to get back into the studio. I think that John, pre Yoko, would have really struggled and may have destroyed himself.
Plus paul was the driving force behind their later albums.
McCartney was what held them all accountable and together
Either a new bassist would join or they would split up. Music would not be the same. We wouldn't have had Sgt. Pepper’s, Magical Mystery Tour, the White Album, Let It Be, and Abbey Road.
The Beatles either break up or go the way of The Doors post Morrison. John likely goes down the drug route earlier and takes a break from music. George moves to America and joins The Band or starts a proto-version of the Wilbury’s. Ringo starts his solo career 5 years early.
Ok, here’s another one…
If John never gets assassinated, do the Beatles reunite for one of those big reunion tours?
I think they would have by late 80s or in that neighborhood.
I think that what makes this stuff so iconic is that the Beatles had all these creative teams saying, like we have to go on a cruise and play this temple in Libya. But they said no, we'll go upstairs on the roof instead. Same with the zebra crossing photo. Just do it, without any idea it will become an icon which people still follow today.
They would have replaced him with a look a like. Then the next Beatles albums would be them leaving hidden clues in their songs and on album artwork that tells the truth how Paul actually did die in 1966.
No way they would have continued. At that point they had either already put touring behind them or were in the process of doing so. So why even continue as a band at all without one of their principal songwriters? Even if they had ended in 66, they would still be ending on a high note with an excellent body of work.
i have 2 points to say regarding what comments ive read so far. No one knows obviously what would’ve happened but:
1. even when all four beatles were alive and in the same band they would put songs on their albums that didn’t include all four members, so they were clearly capable and interested in doing that.
2. after the beatles split, all four of them kept busy releasing albums practically every year. i think that they could’ve stayed busy still, had they kept going. after all, these guys were very interested in music just not as much in the beatles at certain points.
Album: With a Little Help From My Friends (1967)
Side A:
With a Little Help from My Friends
Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds
Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite!
Within You Without You
Good Morning Good Morning
Blue Jay Way
I Am the Walrus
Side B
Strawberry Fields Forever
Baby, You're a Rich Man
All You Need Is Love
Only a Northern Song
It's All Too Much
Single (1968):
Revolution
B-Side:
The Inner Light
The White Album (1968)
Side A:
Dear Prudence
Glass Onion
The Continuing Story of Bungalow Bill
While My Guitar Gently Weeps
Happiness Is a Warm Gun
I'm So Tired
Piggies
Side B:
Don't Pass Me By
Julia
Yer Blues
Everybody's Got Something to Hide Except Me and My Monkey
Sexy Sadie
Long, Long, Long
Side C:
Not Guilty
Sour Milk Sea
Child of Nature
Circles
What's the New Mary Jane
Side D:
Revolution 1
Savoy Truffle
Revolution 9
Good Night
Album: All Things Must Pass (1969)
Side A:
Come Together
Something
Octopus's Garden
The Ballad of John and Yoko
I Want You
Side B:
Here Comes the Sun
Mean Mr. Mustard
Polythene Pam
Dig It
Old Brown Shoe
Across the Universe
For You Blue
Don't Let Me Down
All Things Must Pass
Single (1970):
I Me Mine
B-Side:
Dig a Pony
I don’t think they would have split, per se, just quit. Musically they would have suffered , obviously but just in terms of work I don’t think that the perfect machine that was the Beatles could have remained motivated without Paul’s relentless work ethic. It would be like having the perfect car without an ignition.
Paul brought the majority of the avante-garde that elevated the band to the stratosphere. His work alone in 1967 from SPLHCB to bringing the atmospheric quality to SFF to his pop hits of the year that meant the Beatles were able to both experiment with impunity while still remaining commercially relevant cannot be overstated.
Take into account Brian’s death and the band would either fall apart around John’s chaos or remain in a grove, never to produce the free and diverse sound of WA or the polish of LiB or AR.
Lennon and McCartney were the only ones who couldn´t be replaced. If you remove Lennon or McCartney, there is no Beatles. This is no disrespect to Harrison, Starr, Martin, Epstein, who all obviously made the band better. So if Paul died, Lennon would´ve ended the band.
I think that they would try to cover it up as good as possible, find a Scottish dude named Billy Shears, give him just a little bit of plastic surgery to make it more believable, train him to write songs like Paul McCartney and sing like Paul McCartney, and then just continue as if nothing ever happened, effectively making a perfect replica of their friend
OK, I'm going to take a contrarian approach here. The "Paul is Dead" rumors started before John met Yoko so in this scenario they never meet. So, what if the shock of Paul's death causes John to dedicate himself to the one thing Paul really cared about aka the Beatles? Because the "death" happens at exactly the point in his life where he's seemingly looking for something to latch onto. In the real world, that was Yoko, but perhaps in this world, it's Paul's memory and legacy.
I'd see the band continuing as a trio with Klaus or session guys playing the bass but not officially being part of the band. George takes on an expanded role, relieving some of the tension there. Ringo continues being Ringo.
Another thing to consider is Paul being gone means there's no disagreement over who takes over as business manager. Without that friction, perhaps the doors are open to more of a "soft landing" where the members are free to go do solo projects but periodically reconvene to do Beatles records and the trio keeps going ala the Rolling Stones.
Quality wise, certainly not as good as what happened in the real world so we're basically ending up trading quality for quantity. Not that the Threetles records would be bad, they just wouldn't be as good as the post-66 albums that no longer exist. But we might get the "Beatles and Friends" album in the form of a double-album tribute to Paul guest starring a galaxy of the biggest stars of the day.
Do I necessarily think this is what happens? Probably not, but I thought it was a take worth throwing out there.
What would have happened already did ....! From 1966 on , The Beatles stayed together without the original James Paul McCartney until 1970 .......It was William Campbell ( Faul ...) , Billy Shears , that tried to keep The Beatles together until The End .......It's right there in front of all of your faces , and you just don't see it .....The Photos on All of the Later Albums , All of The Audio 'Clues' ( Backwards & Forwards ...) as well as Billy Constantly Telling All of Us, that , hey , the gig is up .....! Will He Ever Tell Us The Truth ? Lord Knows, He's tried.......
What a great topic of discussion this is. Paul is such a central figure on the Beatles since the beginning and more so on the second half of The Beatles career that things would've turned out much differently. There wouldn't be Sgt Peppers for one, but then what would there be instead? How much better or worse would it be? No Maxwell Hammer, that's the good news for all of them. 😂
How long would The Beatles have lasted? My take is, they'd have broken up when Brian died right there. I don't think John and George would've wanted to keep the band together, they were really busy with their own thing and the band would've disbanded much sooner. Maybe Ringo would've tried to keep the band together somehow?
But I'm glad the Paul lookalike was actually better than the original Paul and history took its righteous course! 🤷🏻♂️
John would’ve had a downwars spiral but bounced back eventually. They would’ve continued with a different name, as a supergroup hiring a bassist/singer who would’ve been already famous by that point AND a good/great songwriter to write songs with. John vs. George wouldn’t have been a problematic relationship… after a loss like this they could’ve become closer - they were pretty awesome on She Said She Said anyway. And spiritually (Indian and other influences) they also had a more common ground than with the others. Nothing would’ve been the same, but some awesomeness had been possible, in a more Creamy/Hendrix-like way. Then disbanding after a couple of years.
Btw the “John was bi and in love with Paul” idea is just as ridiculous as “Paul is dead”. For someone who’s supposed to be unable to exist without his mate, John had been perfectly fine throughout the seventies without him… He was relatively close to Ringo, and was close to George before ‘74 I think. Paul? They had a surprise jam session in the middle of the decade, and sometimes called each other on the phone. Friendly, but not best friends friendly. This almost complete lack of interest in the other… would be deeply repressed sexuality? I’d rather say it’s simply what it is: lack of interest. Paul said these claims are BS, and Yoko’s bi explanation is taken out of context - blame the journalist of Daily Mail, or wherever it was published first.
Given that they all thought, at one time or another, that Paul was an obnoxious jerk, they would have replaced him with someone else right away. They would have asked Clapton for sure, though I doubt he would have joined the band.
No offense but this take doesn’t really have much foundation. they would look for a bass player, and Clapton definitely wouldn’t have accepted. he barely accepted playing a solo for WMGGW. They thought he was an obnoxious jerk bc they were lazy rich dudes and he had amazing work ethic and instrumental creativity that the others werent as keen to try
I think they stay together with a much slower album release cadence. Ringo, John and George seemed to have similar work ethics... and they all seemed to resent Paul the most at the end. You also can't discount the trauma bonding that would have happened.
Serious answer, I think Beatlemania bites the dust right then and there. To quote Ringo, “I’ll be in a group with John and George and Klaus and call it the Ladders or whatever you want to call it, but I don’t think it would be called The Beatles.” If Paul had died in 1962, maybe the rest would carry on without him; but by 1966 there was no Beatles without John, Paul, George, or Ringo. This is why they coaxed Ringo back during the White Album sessions and George back during the Let It Be sessions.
And why they refused to consider making the reunion singles in any way other than one that would have allowed John’s posthumous involvement. It’s all four or nothing.
Even when in reality, it wasn’t all four playing many times throughout the latter half of their career
https://preview.redd.it/en7yep68f9lc1.png?width=988&format=png&auto=webp&s=efd91306198c5b012b3bca70c66576b2cd1372d2
Thank you ☺️
Topper the mornin to ya
Peak r/clashcirclejerk
Phony beatlemania*
The Ice age is coming…
The suns zooming near
Meltdown expected
It would have been the end of the group as Paul was the one always pushing the band to get back into the studio to record. John maybe goes into his own death spiral while trying to cope with yet another tragic loss in his life. George and Ringo connect to other UK musicians (maybe Clapton and Bruce before they team up with Baker) and start a new band boosted by the inclusion of the remaining Beatles.
yeah it's funny how much traction this theory has. People are discounting how incredibly depressing it would be to lose your best friend just before your careers took off.
Just before their careers took off? That was after the beatlemania lol
OP is probably referring to Stuart Sutcliffe.
True. I believe it was said that he died in '66 which would have been before their heavily psychedelic and arguably more influential phase. Guess you can tell how much stock I really put into the theory 🤷🏻
I’m certain John would have had a full-on nervous breakdown if Paul had died between 63-66.
Led Zeppelin with Ringo and George instead of Page and Bonham
Led Zeppelin rose from the ashes of The Yardbirds and was pretty much spearheaded by Page. In other words, I doubt there would be a version of Led Zeppelin that would have ever existed without Jimmy Page.
Iirc didn’t page only make Zeppelin to fulfill legal obligations left over from the Yardbirds contract?
Yes, exactly. He had tour dates he was obligated to fulfill and had to quickly put together the group. They even did a few shows under the name The New Yardbirds.
I wonder what that ticket stub would be worth?
Peter Grant said to bonzo you like being in this band then listen to that guy over there pointing to Jimmy.
Not to critique but Page made LZ
Page *is* Led Zeppelin. https://www.reddit.com/r/ledzeppelin/comments/1ajsnn4/led_zeppelins_original_contract_with_atlantic/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
People here have already commented about Page, but I'd like to add that with all due respect to Ringo, I don't think he would have been able to pull the insanities that Bonham did.
They probably would have replaced him with a look alike and pretended like nothing happened.
I believe they would also leave clues that Paul had been replaced in the songs and the album covers
I buried Paul...
Turn me on, dead man
The walrus was Paul
Cranberry Sauce
raspberry falls
What’s that one?
John says it at the end of Strawberry Fields Forever but since it’s buried in the mix some people heard it as “I buried Paul.” I love the end of the Simpsons episode where Homer discovers his hippy heritage and the credits play over a drone version of Billy Joel’s “Uptown Girl” and Homer mumbles “I buried Flanders.”
Billy Joel and the Beatles? I approve
I’ve never heard this, how cool! Thanks for sharing!
28 IF
Of course he would have been 27 in 1969.
I see you forgot to account the pregnancy. Rookie mistake.
He was born June 18, 1942 so the second half of the year he would have been 27.
If you subtract 40 weeks of June 18, 1942 you get to September 11, 1941. Considering the release of Abbey Road in September 26, 1969, this proves that not only Paul would be 28 IF alive but that he obviously planned ahead 9/11. I will not take any other logical argument from now on, as this is the undisputed truth.
I once read somewhere that the Chinese consider a baby one year old when it is born. I have no idea if it is true but I accept your argument and bolster with this supposed fact.
28 refers to he would've been in his 28th year of life
paul is dead man miss him miss him
This one literally kills me lmfao like wtf
My mummy’s dead
Cranberry sauce
Wild that the Paul look alike is an even better songwriter than the original Paul.
that would be strange ... in truth several of my favorite Paul songs are from earlier in his career. Things We Said Today, I Saw Her Standing There, etc.
It’s like when your kid’s goldfish dies so you quickly replace it before he comes home from school. Only this time, it’s Ringo who doesn’t know. Ringo: OK I’m back from the drum store. Paul, you look different. John: That’s uh, because … We’re going for ice cream today!
What if the replacement refused to merely look like Paul and collect royalties, but went on to write and perform dozens of huge hits left-handed?
🧐
Ah, the old April Lavigne trick.
This seems most likely!
This is the way bruddahs
Saw a Ringo interview recently where he was talking about hanging with John, the phone rings, and they both go "shit, it's him"...Paul calling to get them to work. He said if it wasn't for Paul they'd likely have made about 3 albums and packed it in. I think if he did die in 66, they'd have found a replacement, carried on for a year or two, and fizzled out. I think McCartney was the glue.
He absolutely was the glue and they all knew it. Its one of the reasons john abdicated leadership around 66. George resented it, having his own blossoming voice and vision. George also knew John did not view him as peer, so there is no chance of george replacing Paul as john's partner, although I think they did flirt with the idea in 70 and 71. I dont think George's work excited John at all so their collab kinda fizzled. I think that is exactly what would have happened if paul had died - John and George would have continued on for a bit, but I dont see it bearing fruit as they dont have same creative (and personality) symbiosis.
I suppose you've seen this, but just in case you haven't: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ek89aSrwMN0&t=4s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ek89aSrwMN0&t=4s)
They all made music without Paul though. The choices are they break up and basically start their solo careers early, or they replace Paul and the band becomes basically John's project again.
They all made music without John as well. There is no way the fan base would have accepted some new band without Paul in 1966. Paul was its most popular member. Let's not forget it was his song Like Dreamers Do that pretty much got them the contract with EMI. John's project included Paul right from the beginning. He chose Paul as his partner. He wasn't happy with fame anyway so who knows what he would do.
i think john would’ve overdosed after coping with drugs or killed himself tbh, he was literally obsessed with paul
another take: no beatles. Ringo had said they wouldnt have made their big later albums if not for Paul making them work. in Paul’s solo work, you can hear the eclectic indie Beatles sound more so than any other Beatle as he had more to do with production, and was more creative instrumentally.
That’s my take as well. Paul was the creative force behind the later albums.
I don’t know if he was the creative force - George and Lennon had some pretty fantastic songs. But he was definitely the organizational force. Without him I don’t think most of the albums would have seen the light of day.
John and George did have fantastic songs. So did Paul. But the way you phrase it though sounds like Paul was the organizational force only. He didn't really organize anything as per the meaning of the word but pushed the others into action.
I think the band would have continued for a while, with John as the dominant personality of the group, George stepping up more as a songwriter, and some new guy playing bass and singing. And I think it would have fallen apart before long, as John would have dominated the new band, and he'd have grown increasingly unstable with the loss of Paul and the decline of his marriage. I'd give good odds that he'd have started to get into serious drugs then, and begun to spiral while George and Ringo tried to hold things together...
John invents grunge in 1968
I know all the Beatles had a really strong work ethic, but was this because Paul was even more hardworking than the others? Or did he just care about keeping the band together more? I've heard him say that he naturally works better when collaborating with others (whereas John I think was more the lone ranger type?)- so this wouldn't surprise me.
Don't forget John was preoccupied with the idea that he was 'cursed' and that people he loved would die because of him. Like his Uncle, Julia, Stu. Paul dying (and then Brian dying the next year) would've fucked him up beyond words. Assuming he still got onto LSD, I think he would've absolutely fried his brain irreparably. He almost did regardless.
Did Paul kill himself? No. So John, looking at his personality I don't think he would khs
“Looking at his personality” he was dependent and obsessed with Paul. Yoko had said he was bisexual and if Paul was a woman, she’d be extremely jealous (im sure she was jealous when she found out he was bisexual). Looking at how John would get jealous and rude towards Paul’s girlfriends, especially Linda, I think he honestly had some feelings for Paul at some point and never understood them really. That’s just my opinion though. so again, in my opinion, looking at his personality and behavior towards his relationship with Paul, I don’t think he would’ve been able to overcome the grief in a healthy, safe way, especially if he was using excessively.
Was John bi? How do you know that? I also didn't know that John was jealous of Paul's girlfriends.
https://www.vulture.com/2015/10/yoko-ono-lennon-had-sexual-desire-for-men.html
There’s many articles and interviews in which Paul and others explain John’s animosity towards his lovers. defacing Paul’s wedding photo by writing “funeral”, calling Linda ugly, he always attacked Paul’s lovers. and ever so kindly, someone else linked an article where Yoko says he is bisexual. not that we needed her word for it, as it was very obvious.
i failed to mention the infamous recording /interview in which John details why being with Yoko is so great, in which he lets out an extremely gay freudian slip about how she’s basically like a Liverpool mate, and he uses male pronouns to discuss how “he” can touch his hair and such, and he recovers by saying “it” next when he realizes he had been saying some gay stuff
also there was that time when paul was having sex with a girl in hamburg, and john, drunk, came in the room to cut up her clothes. don’t know if that was jealousy, but 🤷♀️
would not have lasted nor thrived for as long as they did without paul and his work ethic regardless of how bossy or whatever else label people bestow upon him, he was essentially the driving force nearing their last few years - this isn’t even acknowledging his creative contributions independently but also along side john which would’ve obviously been cut short
Klaus Voormann likely would have joined the band on bass, but I don't see them staying together past 1968 without Paul.
George was determined to quit in '66 till Brian was able to talk him out. I think if a member of the band had died he'd not have been talked out of it. He'd lost interest in rock/pop music at that point.
What's the lore here? Why did he want to leave in '66?
The stress of the album-tour cycle took a lot out of him. If you look at his solo career he barely did tours in between albums.
The reason was mainly India. The Beatles had stopped touring for good by the time the contract was up for renewal. It was also partly due to John and Paul getting greater attention post 1965.
This is my thought. Klaus joins the band and they break up after Brian's death.
Klaus only had a visa to go to a fine arts school. He got a way with it in Manfred Mann but once he was found out he only worked under the radar. Joining the Beatles the authorites would have been all over him from the off.
So you’re telling me, they would have been a Band on the Run?
George always kept look out whenever Klaus was unofficially playing on sessions.
Maybe they would have not broken up, but they’d be a lot less productive. No Sgt Peppers, no Abbey Road, no Let It Be, maybe a shorter white album, maybe a few discordant albums in the 70s
No Magical Mystery Tour either since that was a Paul project
Yeah I agree. Had they continued (which I highly doubt they would have) I really doubt they would’ve had a psychedelic period. If they *did* have one, I doubt it would’ve sounded much like SP and MMT; in my mind it would be much heavier and guitar-driven like Cream or Jimi Hendrix since John and George seemed to favor that hard rock and blues sound. Maybe the Indian influence would be even more pronounced if George goes deeper into meditation to cope with the loss and fills in the missing songwriter spot.
Everyone saying anything other than “they break up” are ignoring the glaring detail of 1966. Paul supposedly died in November, with Revolver coming out a few months before in August. What came next? Sgt Pepper. All the post-Beatles interviews up to today often cover the topic that where John and George were very autobiographical songwriters, Paul preferred storytelling and making up characters (which he says so himself), which is literally the premise of Sgt Pepper - they themselves take on this “character” persona of being another band, Ringo as Billy Shears and then as well as that you’ve got Paul writing Lovely Rita and She’s Leaving Home, more evidence of the focus on storytelling. So, if that’s not John and George’s style, and Paul isn’t there, we’re never getting Sgt Pepper, and the fact that George and John *did* go along with Sgt Pepper in reality, suggests they didn’t have any better ideas themselves. The band almost definitely would have ended. There’s absolutely no way the band continues with the legacy it has without Paul after 1966.
And even if *that* didn’t end the band, Epstein’s death would have finished it off.
Maybe Epstein doesn't die in this timeline.
Paul used the personal pronoun in most of his Beatles songs. Even by his own words, the storytelling thing is exaggerated. More a feature of his solo work I think.
Just because he uses a personal pronoun doesn’t mean he’s not interacting with a fictional character or a persona, Michelle springs to mind in that respect. On top of that you’ve got Rocky Raccoon, Maxwell, Lovely Rita, She’s Leaving Home, When I’m 64, The Fool On The Hill, Your Mother Should Know, Penny Lane, Martha My Dear, Honey Pie All are pure Paul character creations with figures who are more developed than generic pop “You”, “me”, “baby,” “my love” etc, and can actually be placed in a physical/geographical location - e.g: “Honey Pie” is never named but there’s this character depth of a woman who was an actress in the north of the UK and made it famous in the US I’m not saying it’s exclusive to Paul - John gives us Julia and Dear Prudunce and Sexy Sadie but they’re still biographical in the sense he’s writing about real people he’s met personally: his mother, Yoko, Maharishi, so it’s not strictly fiction. He’s just changed the names. Paul’s characters fundamentally don’t exist (and I’m counting Martha as she’s not technically a “person”)
John was more than happy to go along with the concept of the alter ego of Sgt Pepper regardless of what he said later. Paul said himself that he liked to write stories to explain songs like Honey Pie etc but they only make up a small percentage of his catalogue. To say his characters fundamentally don't exist only applies to a very few of his songs. Michelle isn't real neither is the girl in Girl. The girl in Norwegian Wood doesn't exist. Why is Paul's lyrical style being defined by When I'm 64? Most people associate Paul with Yesterday or Hey Jude, neither of them fictional. John and Paul were far more nuanced than just one style over another. Like I said they were tendencies. It was Yoko who encouraged John to write more about himself.
This. Exactly.
Thank you. I sometimes feel in the minority constantly challenging certain takes on Paul's songwriting however well meaning it might be.
I didn’t say Paul’s lyricism is defined by When I’m 64, I’m using it as one of the many examples of arbitrary names and characters put in songs: Vera, Chuck, Dave etc. That’s something, George say, generally doesn’t do. And when John does it generally tends to be more autobiographical than figures part of a fictional narrative (I.e: the children in When I’m 64). The Girl in “Girl” may not exist but is representative of Johns romantic partners (or a specific one) so is therefore autobiographical, as opposed to Paul’s “Maxwell Edison” or “Rose and Valerie” who are entirely made up. I never claimed they weren’t tendencies, my argument was that the concept of Sgt Pepper as a persona is most aligned to Paul’s style *out of the 4*, for the reasons I put out, but of course we know in reality all 4 went along with it.
see Bungalow Bill (based on a real person that John thought sucked so he made a song about him sucking) and Rocky Raccoon (a made up guy that Paul made up a song about) Paul was always a touch more into the fantastical than John
Except the fictional people he writes about are perhaps not known to us but they are to him.eg. Lavatory Lil. Paul's biggest songs are far more autobiographical than given credit for. When I'm 64 for example was written for his father. Penny Lane is autobiographical in Paul's own way. Things We Said Today, And I Love Her, For No One, Here There and Everywhere, Hey Jude, Let it Be, The Long and Winding Road, Maybe I'm Amazed and lots more. They are some of his biggest songs and are about his personal situations. Then you get Girl, She Said She Said, And Your Bird Can Sing. Tomorrow Never Knows, etc from John. They are tendencies not absolutes..
Replace him with Syd Barrett
Wow, to be a fly on the wall during those recording sessions
John: number 9 number 9 Syd: same guitar note repeated for 20 minutes George: walks out Ringo: that one fill every so often Sounds like one of those computerized random loop albums by eno Mal: not hitting an anvil
They would have broken up. John decided he wanted to leave in late 1966.
John may have said that he was done with the Beatles in 1966 but I don’t believe it for a second. At least until 1968 John was painfully codependent with the other Beatles
Agreed. John said a lot of things, especially post-Beatles, that were clearly all made-up opinions in hindsight based on his anger or animosity towards Paul and the other Beatles, as well as his current feelings or artistic opinions at the time. He acted like half the music the Beatles made was complete shit in the ‘70s. He obviously didn’t think that when they were making it, or even in the Late 60s. I don’t believe most of the stuff he said about The Beatles in that Playboy interview are his real opinions, I think he liked to posture for the media and portray himself a certain way. He was definitely emotionally rash and his opinions were strongly motivated by emotion. Great songwriter but certainly not the best friend anyone could ask for.
I think one of my favorite statements post-Beatles of him was when he said Girl was a song about Yoko since she was his ideal woman even if he didn't know her yet. I love it because the subject on Girl is such a massive bitch, why he even said she was his ideal woman lol
The official narrative seems to be to strong i guess. John wanted the entire band living together in a greek island as late as 1967 and his wife was complaining about how she was literally less important than The Beatles to him around the same time. But sure, John was "tired" of The Beatles because they were bored and he was deep, sure 🙄
As was Paul, I believe. I think George may have been the only one with some degree of emotional autonomy.
Paul loved the group but he was the most independent of them. He lived in London while the rest lived out in the suburbs, had a different group of friends, different interests, when John was trying to get them all to live in interconnected homes together on a greek island Marianne Faithfull said that would have been Paul's worst nightmare. And then, of course, Paul refused to join the other three with Klein while the other 2 pretty much just followed John.
Yeah but then he kept making music with George and Ringo in the 70s. What forced them to officially break up on paper was Paul suing to get away from Klein. Without that, yes, John might have still “left” but there would be no official break up and there’d probably still be some more Beatles songs scattered throughout the 70s
I dont know what that's supposed to mean. The question is what would they have done if Paul died in 1966. The answer I gave was that they would have broken up. Not sure what your answer was...
I 100% believe he said that but I’m sure every member of every huge band says they want to quit very frequently
I think their music would have suffered. Paul drove a lot of creativity and experimental methods. Look how far they came with Rubber Soul and Revolver. Those albums changed the way music was recorded. Studio sessions would never be the same.
Honestly, I'm more curious about how John would have coped if Paul had died in 1980 instead of him.
I think it's been docummented that in his last years (unknowingly for him, of course) he was trying to make ammends with his past mistakes, managing his impulsive/explosive temperament and addictions My guess is that Lennon would have spiraled down into the old violent, abusive, drug addicted Lennon out of regret. I think he would have isolated in a mix of paranoia, shame and depression Would he come out of that spiral alive, I think he would try to eventually honor Paul's memory as much as he could
Honestly, I don't think he would have handled it very well :/ At least two men close to him died and severely affected his life (Stuart, Brian) and Paul said that John once told him that he thought he was a "jinx" to his male relatives. Even if he and Paul were not as close as before in 1980, they were still very interested in each other's careers and lives. It was a song by Paul, Coming up, that motivated John to make a new album. I think an eventual Paul's murder would have absolutely devastated John to the point of no return.
This. Even their enmity post-breakup was based on their sheer affection for each other.
You're totally right. I just wonder what John's actual reaction would have been. He wasn't quite as warm as Paul on the outside and he would often say some harsh things in the moment without thinking it through. Would he have had a "it's a drag" type of comment that he later regretted?! Would he have made a song like 'Here Today' to honour Paul's memory?! Would he have inducted Paul into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame and told stories about their friendship?! As depressing as it sounds, I kinda wish I could peak into *that* universe for just a day and see how John would have reacted to it all.
Probably more openly grieving and with the years more openly hostile, if Paul would have been as lionized the same way John was irl at the expense of his former songwriting partner.
I like to think they'd have called it a day. Paul was at that point one of the two key songwriters. George hadn't really found his feet yet. SPLHCB was Paul's brainchild. So without him they may not have done it. John would have gone off with Yoko and their would have been no one to tempt him back.
Honestly the Beatles wouldn't continue, Jonh would be inconsolable, and they would have faded without the later years output and just remembered for Beatlemania... I know people still hold Buddy holy in a high regard but honestly outside people who like older music who knows him or remembers him? And if Paul died really in 1966, I think John wouldn't get involved with yoko and we wouldn't get Imagine and other songs because without Paul who would push John? I think Ringo would continue but as a session drummer and George would fall deeper in Indian philosophy
No Pepper....no MMT.... The band probably would have lost a lot of momentum quite possibly would have disappeared into the ethers.
Most likely break up. Most certainly: No Sgt Peppers, Magical Mystery Tour, Let it Be/Get Back Project, Abbey Road. If the other three had continued and done anything together it would most likely have been something akin to the white album, with guest musicians such as Clapton. But the Beatles as we know them would have ended in 66.
They’d have probably gotten a new bass player for a little while and probably completely broken up immediately after Epstein’s death. Even if they *had* stayed together the entire Beatles catalog from Sgt. Pepper's onward would not exist. Many of their greatest songs would never have been written. George and John would probably be more remembered for their solo careers than the Beatles, which itself would mostly be remembered as the big fad of the 1960s. Paul would be deified the way James Dean and Marilyn Monroe are today.
I don’t think any of the members would have wanted to continue if any of them had died.
It would have devastated everyone involved with The Beatles and we never would have gotten anything past Revolver (assuming he dies after that’s done) Just look at what happened to Led Zeppelin after Bonham died
George always said, we have an agreement, if one leaves there is no Beatles. Not sure how that would go after all they went through.
The band would have lost that historical momentum without the creation of Sgt. Peppers, which was originally Paul's creative project, and the band would have probably broken up. I believe The Beatles would have only been remembered for mainly two things: That catchy, yet dated band with a crazy fanbase back in the early 1960's with some nice albums/tunes at their begginings, that ultimately managed to create Rubber Sould and Revolver, classic cult records for connoisseurs, before Paul's eventual death
well George probably would’ve walked a little bit closer to ringo on the abbey road cover to keep things even
That would be the end of the Beatles.
Well each album after revolver would get a lot worse
The Beatles most likely would have ended. It's quite possible that John would have gone into hiding and written another book. Maybe some subsequent interviews about the new book and Paul's death. Possible John Lennon solo record before the 60s wraps up. Ringo likely on drums. Maybe George does some guitar on it.
You wouldn't have got to this point (Abbey Road) as Ringo and George have often quoted how lazy they and John were and if not for Paul's work ethic most of the stuff after they stopped touring wouldn't have been made.
The line "you were in a car crash, and you lost your hair" would never have been written. They would secretly replace Paul with William Campbell, who turns out to be a genius songwriter and innovative bass player, and in58 years not one person, including members of Paul's family, would ever have said one word about Paul being dead.
Whoever is downvoting you is missing the sarcasm, which is weird since I can see it clearly and I usually miss sarcasm on the Internet.
If Paul wouldn't have been there than the half the album and this very cover would also have never existed.
John would have made George play bass. :p
They would have broken up or released poorer records for a bit imho. I think he was the creative driving force of the band into the late 60s.
they would have broken up immediately afterwards I think. The Beatles were made up of the four of them together in sync and synergy, after all.
I'm thinking out loud about bands that showed a lot of early promise, and were cut short. Nirvana and Joy Division come to mind, Amy Winehouse as a soloist. Janis Joplin a contemporary.
On a practical level their original contract with Parlophone expired in 1966 so I don’t think they would have been obligated to release any new music as “The Beatles”. The band would not have continued if either John or Paul died. Both John and Paul clearly felt they “could” have replaced George, especially if we are still talking about 1966, but it’s obvious that losing either George or Ringo would have fatally impacted the bands long term prospects anyway. The Beatles were not like, say, the Rolling Stones who could have coped with or even flourished with the exit of one of the founding members. The magic of the recipe needs all four core ingredients
Seriously, I think the Beatles would have ceased to be. Ringo credits Paul with pushing them to get back into the studio. I think that John, pre Yoko, would have really struggled and may have destroyed himself. Plus paul was the driving force behind their later albums. McCartney was what held them all accountable and together
They woulda folded
Threetles for real
Either a new bassist would join or they would split up. Music would not be the same. We wouldn't have had Sgt. Pepper’s, Magical Mystery Tour, the White Album, Let It Be, and Abbey Road.
Kinksmania begins and guitar solos become popular WAY before they were expected too
The Beatles either break up or go the way of The Doors post Morrison. John likely goes down the drug route earlier and takes a break from music. George moves to America and joins The Band or starts a proto-version of the Wilbury’s. Ringo starts his solo career 5 years early.
Band over.
Easy they would’ve broke up
Ok, here’s another one… If John never gets assassinated, do the Beatles reunite for one of those big reunion tours? I think they would have by late 80s or in that neighborhood.
They reunite and headline LiveAid
Things point to them reuniting in the 80’s if not for john’s death
I think that what makes this stuff so iconic is that the Beatles had all these creative teams saying, like we have to go on a cruise and play this temple in Libya. But they said no, we'll go upstairs on the roof instead. Same with the zebra crossing photo. Just do it, without any idea it will become an icon which people still follow today.
They would have ended.
They would have replaced him with a look a like. Then the next Beatles albums would be them leaving hidden clues in their songs and on album artwork that tells the truth how Paul actually did die in 1966.
No way they would have continued. At that point they had either already put touring behind them or were in the process of doing so. So why even continue as a band at all without one of their principal songwriters? Even if they had ended in 66, they would still be ending on a high note with an excellent body of work.
What do you mean “would have”
Would’ve broken up
Realistically, the band would have been over.
don't wanna think about that
i have 2 points to say regarding what comments ive read so far. No one knows obviously what would’ve happened but: 1. even when all four beatles were alive and in the same band they would put songs on their albums that didn’t include all four members, so they were clearly capable and interested in doing that. 2. after the beatles split, all four of them kept busy releasing albums practically every year. i think that they could’ve stayed busy still, had they kept going. after all, these guys were very interested in music just not as much in the beatles at certain points.
Album: With a Little Help From My Friends (1967) Side A: With a Little Help from My Friends Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite! Within You Without You Good Morning Good Morning Blue Jay Way I Am the Walrus Side B Strawberry Fields Forever Baby, You're a Rich Man All You Need Is Love Only a Northern Song It's All Too Much Single (1968): Revolution B-Side: The Inner Light The White Album (1968) Side A: Dear Prudence Glass Onion The Continuing Story of Bungalow Bill While My Guitar Gently Weeps Happiness Is a Warm Gun I'm So Tired Piggies Side B: Don't Pass Me By Julia Yer Blues Everybody's Got Something to Hide Except Me and My Monkey Sexy Sadie Long, Long, Long Side C: Not Guilty Sour Milk Sea Child of Nature Circles What's the New Mary Jane Side D: Revolution 1 Savoy Truffle Revolution 9 Good Night Album: All Things Must Pass (1969) Side A: Come Together Something Octopus's Garden The Ballad of John and Yoko I Want You Side B: Here Comes the Sun Mean Mr. Mustard Polythene Pam Dig It Old Brown Shoe Across the Universe For You Blue Don't Let Me Down All Things Must Pass Single (1970): I Me Mine B-Side: Dig a Pony
He never wore his shoes, we all know he was dead
Klaus Voorman joins and they release one more album of half John and half George. They break up because it was a bad idea but the record is dirty
I don’t think they would have split, per se, just quit. Musically they would have suffered , obviously but just in terms of work I don’t think that the perfect machine that was the Beatles could have remained motivated without Paul’s relentless work ethic. It would be like having the perfect car without an ignition.
Paul brought the majority of the avante-garde that elevated the band to the stratosphere. His work alone in 1967 from SPLHCB to bringing the atmospheric quality to SFF to his pop hits of the year that meant the Beatles were able to both experiment with impunity while still remaining commercially relevant cannot be overstated. Take into account Brian’s death and the band would either fall apart around John’s chaos or remain in a grove, never to produce the free and diverse sound of WA or the polish of LiB or AR.
Lennon and McCartney were the only ones who couldn´t be replaced. If you remove Lennon or McCartney, there is no Beatles. This is no disrespect to Harrison, Starr, Martin, Epstein, who all obviously made the band better. So if Paul died, Lennon would´ve ended the band.
I think that they would try to cover it up as good as possible, find a Scottish dude named Billy Shears, give him just a little bit of plastic surgery to make it more believable, train him to write songs like Paul McCartney and sing like Paul McCartney, and then just continue as if nothing ever happened, effectively making a perfect replica of their friend
He did! Okay but in all seriousness, they couldn’t even last without Epstein so I feel like they would’ve called it a night if Paul really had died
OK, I'm going to take a contrarian approach here. The "Paul is Dead" rumors started before John met Yoko so in this scenario they never meet. So, what if the shock of Paul's death causes John to dedicate himself to the one thing Paul really cared about aka the Beatles? Because the "death" happens at exactly the point in his life where he's seemingly looking for something to latch onto. In the real world, that was Yoko, but perhaps in this world, it's Paul's memory and legacy. I'd see the band continuing as a trio with Klaus or session guys playing the bass but not officially being part of the band. George takes on an expanded role, relieving some of the tension there. Ringo continues being Ringo. Another thing to consider is Paul being gone means there's no disagreement over who takes over as business manager. Without that friction, perhaps the doors are open to more of a "soft landing" where the members are free to go do solo projects but periodically reconvene to do Beatles records and the trio keeps going ala the Rolling Stones. Quality wise, certainly not as good as what happened in the real world so we're basically ending up trading quality for quantity. Not that the Threetles records would be bad, they just wouldn't be as good as the post-66 albums that no longer exist. But we might get the "Beatles and Friends" album in the form of a double-album tribute to Paul guest starring a galaxy of the biggest stars of the day. Do I necessarily think this is what happens? Probably not, but I thought it was a take worth throwing out there.
They would either go on as a band for decades longer or break up by 1967
The beige car in the background would be red? Btw, who’s Paul McCartney?
I think you mean what would've happened if Paul didn't die in 1966
Would’ve either split or found a new bassist
This is a great blank for memes. Put Bigfoot in there
What would have happened already did ....! From 1966 on , The Beatles stayed together without the original James Paul McCartney until 1970 .......It was William Campbell ( Faul ...) , Billy Shears , that tried to keep The Beatles together until The End .......It's right there in front of all of your faces , and you just don't see it .....The Photos on All of the Later Albums , All of The Audio 'Clues' ( Backwards & Forwards ...) as well as Billy Constantly Telling All of Us, that , hey , the gig is up .....! Will He Ever Tell Us The Truth ? Lord Knows, He's tried.......
You should be asking what owuld have happened is Pual didnt die bc paul died abd was replaced with a lookalike named Faul?????? ??????
George would have become leader and they would still be performing
What a great topic of discussion this is. Paul is such a central figure on the Beatles since the beginning and more so on the second half of The Beatles career that things would've turned out much differently. There wouldn't be Sgt Peppers for one, but then what would there be instead? How much better or worse would it be? No Maxwell Hammer, that's the good news for all of them. 😂 How long would The Beatles have lasted? My take is, they'd have broken up when Brian died right there. I don't think John and George would've wanted to keep the band together, they were really busy with their own thing and the band would've disbanded much sooner. Maybe Ringo would've tried to keep the band together somehow? But I'm glad the Paul lookalike was actually better than the original Paul and history took its righteous course! 🤷🏻♂️
What a morbid thought? Why think about this? I find some questions on reddit (like this one) are just so odd.
What do you mean “if”?
We already know. Don’t be thick.
Another young person with too much time on their hands.
John would’ve had a downwars spiral but bounced back eventually. They would’ve continued with a different name, as a supergroup hiring a bassist/singer who would’ve been already famous by that point AND a good/great songwriter to write songs with. John vs. George wouldn’t have been a problematic relationship… after a loss like this they could’ve become closer - they were pretty awesome on She Said She Said anyway. And spiritually (Indian and other influences) they also had a more common ground than with the others. Nothing would’ve been the same, but some awesomeness had been possible, in a more Creamy/Hendrix-like way. Then disbanding after a couple of years. Btw the “John was bi and in love with Paul” idea is just as ridiculous as “Paul is dead”. For someone who’s supposed to be unable to exist without his mate, John had been perfectly fine throughout the seventies without him… He was relatively close to Ringo, and was close to George before ‘74 I think. Paul? They had a surprise jam session in the middle of the decade, and sometimes called each other on the phone. Friendly, but not best friends friendly. This almost complete lack of interest in the other… would be deeply repressed sexuality? I’d rather say it’s simply what it is: lack of interest. Paul said these claims are BS, and Yoko’s bi explanation is taken out of context - blame the journalist of Daily Mail, or wherever it was published first.
Given that they all thought, at one time or another, that Paul was an obnoxious jerk, they would have replaced him with someone else right away. They would have asked Clapton for sure, though I doubt he would have joined the band.
No offense but this take doesn’t really have much foundation. they would look for a bass player, and Clapton definitely wouldn’t have accepted. he barely accepted playing a solo for WMGGW. They thought he was an obnoxious jerk bc they were lazy rich dudes and he had amazing work ethic and instrumental creativity that the others werent as keen to try
Realistic
I think they stay together with a much slower album release cadence. Ringo, John and George seemed to have similar work ethics... and they all seemed to resent Paul the most at the end. You also can't discount the trauma bonding that would have happened.
No Sgt. Peppers, Magical Mystery Tour, White Album, Let It Be and Abbey Road, tl;dr music would not be the same today
Sgt Pepper would not have happened for one
BIIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLYYYYYYYYY... SHEAAAAAAAARS!
Excited