AHC: Prevent Beatlemania

John Fredrick Parker · Apr 23, 2015

What is the latest PoD (so 1962, if possible) that would preempt the Beatles achieving noted level of fame?

merlin · Apr 23, 2015

But why? The Beatles were the best thing to happen to the 'Pop' industry in the Sixties. The music industry would be very different without their influence.

von kressenstein · Apr 23, 2015

have the plane crash on the way over...

other ideas .. have them have longer hair.. be less presentable..

the hardest factor to overcome will be the Elvis, Sinatra effects that also helped to stir things..

but if the Beatles fail with their bubblegum style.. they will just get replaced by someone else... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Invasion

by 1962 you have teenage hormone crazed baby boomers hungry for entertainment...

now there is an alternative, keep america more conservative country, more classical, more big band, frank sinatra style .. this would mean keeping the cultural winds of change from progressing.. so maybe nixon wins .. youth is not served.. or.. you could have America much more angry and fractured say civil rights boils over in late 50's leaving division and scars upon the psyche .. then you could get a more hard rock scene instead of the Beatles

Wildcard F. Kennedy · Apr 23, 2015

Increase the tension in the band between band members. A falling out between John and Paul leeds to John quiting. Even if the other 3 carry on, and find a new guitarist, they won't be as good. Paul was a good songwriter but his colaborations with John had alot to do with their success!

Glass Onion · Apr 23, 2015

If you delay the end of conscription in the U.K. by as little as a year the band isn't able to exist because of the age differences. Without the end of conscription the British music scene as we know it probably couldn't have existed.

Perhaps Brian Epstein curiosity is never peaked and he never becomes involved.

Or you could avoid their success with an earlier achievement. Have them signed to Decca. That means no George Martin.

cortz#9 · Apr 23, 2015

von kressenstein said:
have the plane crash on the way over...
<snip>

This sounds like the winner to me.
As for the earliest you could prevent Beatlemania and the British Invasion. Have the Luftwaffe launch more successful bombing raids causing more casualties during the BOB and the Blitz.
Most of the members of british rock bands of the 60s were born during that time.

sciscisciortino · Apr 24, 2015

Glass Onion said:
Or you could avoid their success with an earlier achievement. Have them signed to Decca. That means no George Martin.

Ever listen to the Decca sessions? They're terrible. Don't think they were ready for prime time yet.

flippikat · Apr 24, 2015

cortz#9 said:
This sounds like the winner to me.
As for the earliest you could prevent Beatlemania and the British Invasion. Have the Luftwaffe launch more successful bombing raids causing more casualties during the BOB and the Blitz.
Most of the members of british rock bands of the 60s were born during that time.

Aaannnd just when you think you've seen all the ATL proposals of how the Nazis could be worse, one more horrible possibility occurs!

Glass Onion · Apr 24, 2015

sciscisciortino said:
Ever listen to the Decca sessions? They're terrible. Don't think they were ready for prime time yet.

I'm not sure if it's fair to judge what the Beatles in 1962 were like as a live act in 1962 or what they would have been like on Decca strictly by the audition. They weren't used to being in a studio yet, they were nervous, and by their account and that of people who saw the Beatles in Liverpool prior to their being signed to EMI they were a much better act live than the audition suggests.

With that said-in the context of the the music scene in 1962 I'm not sure I would call their audition at Decca terrible. These are still more or less the Beatles we know-and there are hints throughout of the energy that defined the group. I don't think for example that the Beatles versions of Hello Little Girl and Like Dreamers Do were significantly worse than the released versions of those songs by other artists. There are weak points during the audition, but outside of the fact that this band later became the biggest act of the decade-the Decca audition is more forgettable than irredeemably terrible. More mediocre than awful. If I saw a band that played like the Beatles do on the Decca audition somewhere I wouldn't be throwing tomatoes on the stage-well depending on how much I paid I guess.

However, the failure to be signed to Decca helped make the Beatles what they would later become for two significant reasons.

1.

Because the Beatles ended up signed to EMI, they established their relationship with George Martin. Martin was tremendously important in the Beatles' development and their success. Martin wasn't the sole reason for their musical success-the Beatles were tremendously talented-but if you remove him from the picture they'll have a harder time developing-especially if their producer at Decca can't "translate" what they tell him in the same way Martin was able to.

2.
Not being signed to Decca may have helped finalize the departure of Pete Best from the band. Pete Best seems to have been a perfectly nice man, and he was a decent enough drummer. But the Beatles weren't the Beatles as we know them until Richard Starkey joined the band. Ringo's drumming tends to be overlooked-to the point of being mocked as terrible-but if you listen to the difference between the Pete Best backed version of Love Me Do and the version Ringo did you can immediately tell the difference that Ringo's introduction made to the sound of the group. Much as I feel sorry for what happened to Pete Best, his departure was a good thing for the Beatles in my view.

Without George Martin or Ringo the Beatles are a different band on record, and perhaps a less successful one.

SRT · Apr 24, 2015

What if the Beatles were banned from touring in the USA instead of the Kinks?

cortz#9 · Apr 25, 2015

flippikat said:
Aaannnd just when you think you've seen all the ATL proposals of how the Nazis could be worse, one more horrible possibility occurs!

Wow I didn't think that was possible myself.

SRT said:
What if the Beatles were banned from touring in the USA instead of the Kinks?

I didn't know the Kinks were banned from touring in the U.S. Why exactly were they banned?

iani · Apr 25, 2015

cortz#9 said:
Wow I didn't think that was possible myself.

I didn't know the Kinks were banned from touring in the U.S. Why exactly were they banned?

Ray Davies:
“Some guy who said he worked for the TV company walked up and accused us of being late,” Ray Davies wrote in his autobiography ‘X-Ray.’ “Then he started making anti-British comments. Things like ‘Just because the Beatles did it, every mop-topped, spotty-faced limey juvenile thinks he can come over here and make a career for himself. You’re just a bunch of Commie wimps. When the Russians take over Britain, don’t expect us to come over and save you this time. The Kinks, huh? Well, once I file my report on you guys, you’ll never work in the U.S.A. again. You’re gonna find out just how powerful America is, you limey bastard!’ The rest is a blur. However, I do recall being pushed and swinging a punch and being punched back.”

from: Brawls and Bans: The History of the Kinks' Struggles in America | http://ultimateclassicrock.com/kinks-in-america/?trackback=tsmclip

cortz#9 · Apr 25, 2015

iani said:
Ray Davies:
“Some guy who said he worked for the TV company walked up and accused us of being late,” Ray Davies wrote in his autobiography ‘X-Ray.’ “Then he started making anti-British comments. Things like ‘Just because the Beatles did it, every mop-topped, spotty-faced limey juvenile thinks he can come over here and make a career for himself. You’re just a bunch of Commie wimps. When the Russians take over Britain, don’t expect us to come over and save you this time. The Kinks, huh? Well, once I file my report on you guys, you’ll never work in the U.S.A. again. You’re gonna find out just how powerful America is, you limey bastard!’ The rest is a blur. However, I do recall being pushed and swinging a punch and being punched back.”

from: Brawls and Bans: The History of the Kinks' Struggles in America | http://ultimateclassicrock.com/kinks-in-america/?trackback=tsmclip

Wow that was totally unfair.

Cosmedian · Apr 25, 2015

cortz#9 said:
This sounds like the winner to me.
As for the earliest you could prevent Beatlemania and the British Invasion. Have the Luftwaffe launch more successful bombing raids causing more casualties during the BOB and the Blitz.
Most of the members of british rock bands of the 60s were born during that time.

Nada. If Hitler goes for the Beatles, expect even his loyalist of followers to turn against him immediately, and surrender to the allies, therefore ending WW2 early... Even Goebbels isn't evil enough to avoid Beatlemania.

cortz#9 · Apr 25, 2015

Cosmedian said:
Nada. If Hitler goes for the Beatles, expect even his loyalist of followers to turn against him immediately, and surrender to the allies, therefore ending WW2 early... Even Goebbels isn't evil enough to avoid Beatlemania.

So the Nazis could see into the future?!

And yet they still loss! What a bunch of losers.

Cosmedian · Apr 25, 2015

cortz#9 said:
So the Nazis could see into the future?!
And yet they still loss! What a bunch of losers.

No, no, no, no. The Beatles could travel into the past. How else do you think Paul McCartney assassinated Hitler?

mudhead · Apr 25, 2015

Beatlemania in the USA started with I Want To Hold Your Hand .

Capitol had the US rights to the Fab Four, and simply refused to release their stuff. They tried to prevent airplay of IWTHYH, and eventually gave in and released it.

After that, resistance was futile.

If you could delay the release further, as Capitol were trying to do, it may not have had quite the astounding impact it had, in giving a lift to a country still demoralised by JFK's murder. timing is everything:

...the record's joyous energy and invention lifted america out of its gloom, following which, high on gratitude, the country cast itself at the Beatles' feet. Their TV performance on The Ed Sullival Show on 9 February, claimed by many US commentators to be the pivotal event in American post-war culture, sealed the deal, and, by April, their back catalogue was flooding the US charts.

IWTHYH electrified American pop...every American artist, black or white, asked about IWTHYH has said much the same: it altered everything, ushering in a new era and changing their lives...

Ian Macdonald, Revolution In the Head, Pimlico 1995 ed, p77 (Have you read it yet, cortz#9 ?)

It was the precise when that was important, not just the what : if you can get Capitol to delay it for a few more weeks, then the impact may have been less.

cortz#9 · Apr 25, 2015

mudhead said:
Beatlemania in the USA started with I Want To Hold Your Hand .

Capitol had the US rights to the Fab Four, and simply refused to release their stuff. They tried to prevent airplay of IWTHYH, and eventually gave in and released it.

After that, resistance was futile.

If you could delay the release further, as Capitol were trying to do, it may not have had quite the astounding impact it had, in giving a lift to a country still demoralised by JFK's murder. timing is everything:
...the record's joyous energy and invention lifted america out of its gloom, following which, high on gratitude, the country cast itself at the Beatles' feet. Their TV performance on The Ed Sullival Show on 9 February, claimed by many US commentators to be the pivotal event in American post-war culture, sealed the deal, and, by April, their back catalogue was flooding the US charts.

IWTHYH electrified American pop...every American artist, black or white, asked about IWTHYH has said much the same: it altered everything, ushering in a new era and changing their lives...

Ian Macdonald, Revolution In the Head, Pimlico 1995 ed, p77 (Have you read it yet, cortz#9 ?)

It was the precise when that was important, not just the what : if you can get capitol to delay it for a few more weeks, then the impact may have been less.

No I haven't but I've heard good things about it and will pick it up when I get the chance.

Couldn't agree with you more about IWTHYH and its timing, I've read that the Beatles arrival a few months after the JFK assassination was also key to the impact of Beatlemania.
I forgot who said it but there's a quote about how "America was in a deep depression after JFK and nothing and no one could bring the country out of it until the arrival of the Beatles."
That's not the exact quote but its something like that. I wonder if JFK had not been assassinated, how it might have affected Beatlemania?

John Fredrick Parker · Apr 25, 2015

mudhead said:
If you could delay the release further, as Capitol were trying to do, it may not have had quite the astounding impact it had, in giving a lift to a country still demoralised by JFK's murder. timing is everything...

It was the precise when that was important, not just the what: if you can get capitol to delay it for a few more weeks, then the impact may have been less.

I actually PM'd one of our biggest Beatle experts about this some time ago:

Emperor Norton I said:
John Fredrick Parker said:

I thought if there was anyone on this site to ask about this, it would be you -- would you say the psychological impact of Kennedy's assassination played a role in American pop culture's receptiveness to Beatlemania two months later?

Click to expand...

There is a theory of sorts, which you probably know and which is the reason you are asking this, that the Beatles broke so big because in the wake of the Kennedy assassination and the shock and mourning and depression of it and a sense of lost of a future, they and the Beatlemania already coming from the UK offered joy and an escape. I'm not so sure of that theory (if you can call a cultural guess a theory). I've never seen any hard evidence to back it up, and it seems therefore to be a matter of correlation and causation. That is to say people looking and saying "Kennedy was killed and everyone was depressed, and then Beatlemania came to America and people liked them. They must be related" without any real evidence. It's difficult to say whether it's actually true or whether it's just trying to put things in a convenient historical place with 20/20 hindsight.

I tend to lean towards the idea that (partial) yes, the Beatles did help America heal from the assassination of president Kennedy, but they would have still broken just as big as they did were Kennedy not assassinated. It just would have been that healing America from the assassination of a president was not part of it. I suppose between options A and B, I picked C, or at least B2.

It is an interesting discussion from there how things would unfold and how Kennedy would react to the Beatles. I don't believe Kennedy would have saddled the United States with an Americanized Vietnam war, or at least not one like LBJ's war. Vietnam was the great radicalizer of all factors of the 1960s, and without it I therefore do not see the rise of music and culture that legitimately calls for extremely militant action. I can see protests and hard rock and all sorts of things like that, but not to the degree of a screaming reaction to the world collapsing as it was in the OTL. I lean towards the idea that culture would remain much more Flower Power than "By any means necessary", and that if there is increased militancy, it will be more 1968 MLK than Weather Underground; passionate and angry, but not blowing up buildings. You'll also have president Kennedy living, which means that a mood of carrying on these optimistic things for a martyred leader of optimism and hope will instead be working to carry out the rallying cries and inspirational dreams of a still living leader. That could have an interesting effect because while you may have Hippies, and I believe you would, they'd feel less outsiders fighting the government and more enemies of negative parts of the government but allies of the president on a number of topics. That's a very stark alternate. You could also have hippies being critical of things from the Kennedy administration; not in an "LBJ is Hitler" way, but in a way that makes Kennedy not perfect. That is also a stark alternate.
Those factors will affect culture and music, and the Beatles as part of that world.

On a last note: if you're interested in whether or not Kennedy would like the Beatles, I'd lean towards not much. I don't think he'd hate them, but I think he wouldn't care (though he may make banter for appearances and say he thinks they're ok). He's a WW2 veteran, only about 4 years younger than Nixon. He likes things like Nat King Cole and Broadway songs and the things you'd expect a hip almost-50 year old to listen to in the 60s. My knowledge of JFK's musical tastes are limited, and I think there isn't much on them for that matter, but that is what I know and I don't see anything to make him more than apathetic about the Beatles. He'd probably follow the Dean Martin, Sinatra, etc strain of music that went through the 60s and onward rather than the new music. That's music for John-John.

If I drifted off topic (it's late) then point to anything you'd want me to expand on or try to say better.

mudhead · Apr 26, 2015

cortz#9 said:
No I haven't but I've heard good things about it...

From me, actually; I recommended it some while ago in a discussion we had about Rubber Soul.

JFP - that's a good piece from Emperor Norton I.