|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Jan 14, 2020 12:50:15 GMT
Do you think the Beatles would have still broken up in 1970 or do you think The Beatles would have stilled played together into the 1970s ?
|
|
Dayodead
Junior Member
@dayodead
Posts: 1,172
Likes: 378
|
Post by Dayodead on Jan 14, 2020 13:58:14 GMT
From what I've read, Brian was the glue for these guys. He might have been able to quell the tensions and his presence would have eliminated the power play which essentially killed the band. What they all needed was time off from one another and the business they had created. Who knows, maybe Brian could have kept them connected during an extended time apart exploring solo projects. My guess, a living Brian would have kept the band together until 1976 or so. Few more albums, perhaps and possible reunions down the road. They were never going to be the Stones..
|
|
|
|
Post by Zos on Jan 14, 2020 14:42:18 GMT
Epstein was already on the way out, too many bad business decisions with regards to merchandise etc. McCartney would've got shot of him. Dave Clark for example made lots more money than the Beatles did by making sure he owned his own recordings and leased them to the record companies, a lesson Jimmy page learnt from him. Epstein was too much in love with the band and a pretty lousy business manager.
|
|
|
|
Post by cypher on Jan 14, 2020 17:19:11 GMT
My guess, a living Brian would have kept the band together until 1976 or so. In 1966, Epstein arranged a ten-year recording extension with EMI, and The Beatles' royalties increased. So when Epstein died, The Beatles were worried that they could lose 2 million pounds in taxes, so they created a corporation that could receive the bulk of the payment, and, hopefully provide additional income. Unfortunately, Apple Corps was a free-for-all, and Lennon was the first to sound the alarm, 'If it carries on like this, all of us will be broke in the next six months.' Enter Allen Klein, and, McCartney's brother-in-law, John Eastman. This heralded the end of The Beatles. It's never pleasant being sued by a friend, who is secretly recording a solo album, that he was planning to release the same time a Beatles album was to be released...
|
|
|
|
Post by TheGoodMan19 on Jan 14, 2020 20:04:34 GMT
Epstein was somewhat superfluous by the time of his death. The recording contract was in place. And the band quit touring. Epstein never interfered in the actual making of the music, that was the band and George Martin. Some think his diminishing place in the band contributed to his death.
|
|
|
|
Post by bravomailer on Jan 14, 2020 23:55:10 GMT
Interesting question, though probably an unanswerable one. The four members would have continued going their separate ways even if Epstein had lived. He might have been able to make the Let It Be sessions less acrimonious but I doubt the Beatles would have lasted much longer than they did.
|
|
|
|
Post by millar70 on Jan 15, 2020 1:23:46 GMT
With the band deciding to do all of their work in the studio, Brian's role became smaller and smaller. He could have gone on managing other bands, but The Beatles were his baby. He didn't have the heart to fully commit to anyone else.
If he had lived, though, maybe Paul wouldn't have become so domineering, which was a huge factor in the breakup. Also, maybe Brian could have convinced John to reign it in a little bit with Yoko and some of the out-there stuff they were recording.
|
|
