Was the breakup of the Beatles, in your opinion, a good thing or a bad thing? Should they have gone on into eternity, like (cough, cough, Stones) others of their "generation" have, or just quit while they were ahead, so to speak? Could they have posssibly gotten even BETTER by not breaking up? If they were still together (and all alive), would you still go to the concerts? Whaddya think?
I think the breakup was meant to be. However, if they had concentrated all of their energies on cooperating, and continued into the present as the Beatles, I would definitely still go to their concerts. It's very unusual to think of the Beatles as anything but a '60s band. Just imagine what their '80s albums would be like! *shock, horror* *remembers what Dylan's '80s albums were like...*
I think that if they did stay together, their music would have sucked. They were miserable and tired of each other, and that would have reflected in their music. Instead, they went on to have prosperous solo careers, each one going in their own direction and doing their own thing.
I think that if they were still together they would still be the greatest band of all times and all their new material would of been lovely, and if I had the money I would have went to all of their New York concerts.
well john couldn't have done his artsy stuff [and he basically retired in the mid 70's anyways]...george couldnt have done his Krishna songs, which are awesome in their own special little way...and Paul was stil Paul...Ringo, well, he wouldnt have had as much stuff to do cause many of his songs were written for him...but the closest thing to a Beatles reunion was the "Ringo" album, some of the songs have 3 of them on it, usually without Paul or John
i imagine that they still had enough good material for another 2 or 3 albums.. just look at the solo albums that came out shortly after their demise (john/paul/george, anyway). but i wouldnt want it any other way. they wouldnt be "The Beatles" as we know them had they kept on going.
Yeah, they had some good stuff shortly after breaking up. But, we wouldn't have "How Do You Sleep". I also find it hard to picture "Cold Turkey", "Working Class Hero", and "God" on a Beatles album.
and in my opinion, it was a given ..they had to do what they did to make way for the world to shift the focus from beatles' imaginary status to see .............THE GREATEST BAND EVER (not just rock n roll) ..the rollin fuckin stones!
yeah yeah, lets hear an album filled with songs about how good they thought they were.. "its only rock n roll," well, thats all it shoulda been
It's depressing that they broke up, but if they hadn't I would never have gotten "All Things Must Pass"! George, as usual, would've had a measely 2 (maybe 3 if they were feeling generous) tracks per album. We'd never get to hear gems like "My Sweet Lord" or "Give Me Love (Give Me Peace on Earth)" because John was too cynical and Paul too pop-centric to allow songs like that on a Beatle record. Plus there'd be no Concert for Bangladesh...and because of that maybe no Live Aid and etc. in the future. There are a few Paul solo albums that I really enjoy, but mostly I'm just thankful the Beatles split up so George could really prove his strength and talent as a songwriter. ~Layla
I think George had already "proved" himself as a songwriter.. When you've written songs like Something and Here Comes The Sun, you've definitely got "talent" ...
it was sad when the beatles broke up, but then i realized it was just like a marriage, sometimes you outgrow one another. and i feel each of the beatles wanted to express their true personalities and search out new frontiers. i loved the fact that george became very spiritual and more confident, john became the peace lover, they all needed to be separate from one another to explore new ground. they had been together since they were just young teens. but the beatles were unbelievable and i loved the way their music changed from their innocent years to the "magical mystery tour" years. angel