What did the Beatles do too little of??

[EddieV]

I was surfing around youtube and heard different outtakes and takes of Beatles songs. Some really exciting thing there. I wish they had jammed a little more and release too jammed versions of some the songs. Their songs are nearly too perfect.. They had all the great riffs. Maybe if they had continued in the 70´s we would have seen longer songs and more jamming from them????

[chris]

I know this reply will be a minority voice, but I am sort of grateful they split when they did. If only because they broke up before releasing bad albums. Their record (really, no pun intended) was nearly perfect. That's what made the legend.

Otherwise, they'd be the Rolling Stones. Lots of great tunes (and albums) but some stinkers too. I wouldn't change a thing.

[Blogio]

I agree with Chris.
I think George Martin said it best. The Beatles were great because no other band was more "of their time". The Beatles belonged to the 60's.

They went out on a high note and a very poignant one (Abbey Road Medley)

As for extended jamming, I don't think that was ever their forte. (I'm thinking about 12 Bar Original here) Nor should it have been. Like you said EddieV the songs were perfect.

[bonovox66]

Couldn't agree more with you Chris...

Although there is the possibility that they would not have turned into the Stones but I do not think we would have gotten all the great George or Ringo tracks had they stayed together. I also do not think they would have been writing as a group and the work would have been just like a "solo" release anyway. Can't see them as a jam band either.

[ahawk66]

I agree with a lot of what's been said: their breaking up is part of the reason we're still talking about them so much. They would've had some great stuff after 1970, but the myth is so much larger because of our speculation. I just read the new book, "You Never Give Me Your Money", and it's a fascinating account of the Beatles from '67 to the present, all the business things and other external pressures that really kept them apart. You get a sense of an attraction/repulsion among the 4 of them. At various points, all were OK with the possibility of reforming, but all 4 never really lined up at once. It's riveting, and kind of sad, really. It gives a pretty clear picture of 4 guys caught up in forces they never dreamed of prior to 1966.

[linclink]

1) Play live after 1966?- The Rooftop concert was/is my favorite live event ever...
2) Plant Psychedelics with Shamans- The positive role of Psychedelics on their music, and in their lives, is well documented elsewhere, but...if only they'd chosen a more plant centered path (Psilocybin Mushrooms, Peyote, etc.), instead of a plat derived on (like LSD- noting they did those other Psychedelics, just did LSD much more), and most importantly if they'd worked with trained Shamans to help guide & heal them, then I think their experiences both individually & collectively would have been much more healing & integrated. Who knows what would/could have happened? But these are "what if's", and what occurred is perfect, and was exactly what was supposed to happen. So I not only accept & welcome it, I celebrate it!

[mr h atom]

what did the beatles do too little of ?... ...mushrooms.?!??

good points made by all..eddie, which songs did you find, so we can check 'em out...

a looser beatles might be interesting..it might've eased the tensions that led to their breakup

but, considering where they were at with each other, personally and pyschologically, at the time..the breakup may have been the best thing to keep them from slipping creatively...and there is no reason to believe, had they continued on, that george and ringo would ever have gotten a bigger role, as bonov pointed out

and kudos to ahawk for the heads up ...we tend to forget, in the smoke and mirror/yoko vs linda version of what went wrong, that it was ego, control, power and $$$ that drove and kept those four artists part