>What could have happened if the Beatles went on through the 70s and 80s?

I think you can look at their solo work and answer that...the quality would
have declined (i.e. they got out just before that would have begun to
happen), and by the mid-70s or so their music would have taken a turn
toward the soft.   Like the Stones, they would have had a few inspired
albums along the way, and some very disappointing ones.   I shudder to think
what a 1972 Beatles album would sound like, or, even worse, one from 1984.

And, like Dylan, I think they would have found some new inspiration in the
late 90s and 00s.  They would have remained popular but not necessarliy
influential.

A big NO on the "long solo" idea.  The one thing the Beatles absolutely 
could not
do was jam.  No way would they have gone prog in any way...and they would
have avoided punk but, like solo Paul and George, succumed to crappy 80s 
production
techniques.

We should all thank our lucky stars that they broke up when they did...and
no doubt that's a big part of the reaon their legacy looms so large.  They
didn't stick around long enough to taint it.

I would also point out that their best solo albums--the first two Lennon
albums, RAM, BAND ON THE RUN and the latest few McCartney albums,
ALL THINGS MUST PASS and the last George album, and RINGO, are all
albums that never could have been made if they had remained a group.
Can you imagine "Working Class Hero" and "God" on the same album as
"The Lovely Linda" and "Teddy Boy?" or on the same album as
"Uncle Albert Admiral Halsey?"

_________________________________________________________________
Gear up for HaloŽ 3 with free downloads and an exclusive offer. 
http://gethalo3gear.com?ocid=SeptemberWLHalo3_MSNHMTxt_1