Post by illuminaughti on Dec 11, 2008 3:35:20 GMT
....couldn't they have replaced John too in 1980? I know that it was a different situation in 1966: The Beatles were at their height, were more prevalent in popular culture, and a Beatle death then would have caused who knows what. But Beatles ARE Beatles in any time period, right? Wouldn't a reunion album/tour in the 80's or 90's have raked in an unheard of amount of money?
People may argue that John's death was in public. But John didn't really die until he got to the hospital. They could have said he was in a coma for however long it would have taken to prepare a replacement.
I've just always had this question in the back of my mind as I've read sites like this. (By the way, no disrespect meant to John. I miss him, and I'm glad his life wasn't hijacked like Paul's may have been!)
People may argue that John's death was in public. But John didn't really die until he got to the hospital. They could have said he was in a coma for however long it would have taken to prepare a replacement.
I've just always had this question in the back of my mind as I've read sites like this. (By the way, no disrespect meant to John. I miss him, and I'm glad his life wasn't hijacked like Paul's may have been!)
