WI: No Beatles?

[Zachariah]

So, this is essentially the same premise as the soon-to-be released British film, Yesterday- or rather, the ATL where the film's protagonist gets spontaneously ISOTed away to. An alternate timeline in which The Beatles either never formed, or dissolved before they got their first music contract. Of course, in the film, this is the only difference between the two TLs, with the film's protagonist being the only one who remembers that The Beatles ever existed in his original TL, but with everything and everyone else in the world being fundamentally unchanged as a result of this. Would this be the case though? How big an impact did The Beatles actually have on OTL- and in your opinion, what perceptible, tangible differences would you expect to see by the present day, in a world without The Beatles?

 

[Orange]

I don't think that any musical group (including the Beatles) has that much of an impact on historical events.

Music would be different without the Beatles, but that's about it.

I mean, I have a hard time imagining any presidential elections would have gone differently if it weren't for the Beatles.

 

[Nephi]

I'm sure someone would have had a similar musical impact and I say that loving the Beatles.

Like the Rolling Stones.

 

[cortz#9]

I'm sure someone would have had a similar musical impact and I say that loving the Beatles.

Like the Rolling Stones.

I don't think the Stones would have got a recording contract if the Beatles hadn't made it in 62, the guy who signed the Stones to Decca only did so because because he knew he F-ed up big time by turning down the Beatles. Here there's no reason why he would feel compelled to sign the Stones, he didn't like RnR and the Stones weren't even writing their own songs at this point in time.

Butterfly the Beatles and I think you butterfly the Stones too. The Kinks on the other hand had just formed in 63 and did write their own material so maybe they would've got a contract with someone but it might not happen till 64-65.
So I think we would lose some bands and some others would still make it but a little later than they did IOTL. I think we would also lose a whole lot of songs all around because of the missing Beatles influence as well.
No Beatles is a big butterfly IMHO.

 

[EverKing]

Butterfly the Beatles and think you butterfly the Stones too. The Kinks on the other hand had just formed in 63 and did write their own material so maybe they would've got a contract with someone but it might not happen till 64-65.

In such a timeline as you're describing does Mod become the dominant influence on Pop/Rock and subsequently, does that mean an earlier development and possible dominance of Punk? So instead of the constant arguments of Beatles vs. Stones, do we get just as vehement arguments of Kinks vs. 'Oo (or Small Faces, or any other Mod bands of the mid-60's before they stepped away from Mod and developed new styles)?

 

[Aloha]

How dare you even think such terrible thoughts

 

[Byzantion]

So, this is essentially the same premise as the soon-to-be released British film, Yesterday- or rather, the ATL where the film's protagonist gets spontaneously ISOTed away to. An alternate timeline in which The Beatles either never formed, or dissolved before they got their first music contract. Of course, in the film, this is the only difference between the two TLs, with the film's protagonist being the only one who remembers that The Beatles ever existed in his original TL, but with everything and everyone else in the world being fundamentally unchanged as a result of this. Would this be the case though? How big an impact did The Beatles actually have on OTL- and in your opinion, what perceptible, tangible differences would you expect to see by the present day, in a world without The Beatles?

Then Blues and Rockn Roll stay important ? No Flower Power, Hippies ? Would Working Class Genres like Punk appears ?

 

[Resurgam]

That is the thing that's bothering me about the premise; the butterflies that would be released by negating the Beatles. Oh, sure, I don't think the world would be radically different in terms of politics, but modern music would be a completely different animal. That niggle is hard to suppress but I'll probably be seeing the film with a former student.

Of course, there's always alternate universe Beatles to consider...

 

[merlin]

Would Working Class Genres like Punk appears ?

I think 'Punk' only happened as a reaction to Progressive Rock, and the fact that the musicians playing were getting on a bit! As a result they lost their relevance to the 'youth' of the day, who wanted to put their own stamp on the music of the time.

I think in a ATL of no Beatles, it fundamentally alters, the music industry - the Beatles led the 'British Invasion' of the US Pop scene. They were the first to do pop concerts in large sports stadiums, without their example who would try. Because they led the advent of performing 'groups' - it may indeed just been a passing fad for some of them. While, the Everly Brothers continued their successful career.
Flower Power may still have happened, but accompanied more by Folk Music, rather than Soft Rock.

 

[Khanzeer]

Much better world amen

 

[marathag]

I'm sure someone would have had a similar musical impact and I say that loving the Beatles.

Like the Rolling Stones.

Dave Clark Five might not be all but forgotten today, as they would check most of the boxes of what the Beatles did thru 1966

 

[Mark E.]

Dave Clark Five might not be all but forgotten today, as they would check most of the boxes of what the Beatles did thru 1966

That's more like it. Also don't forget the Kinks, the Who, Stones, etc. Rock went into remission in 1959 in the US in general, but progress continued in two places: the UK and Detroit (Motown, soul). Something was ready to explode at the end of 1963.

 

[Marc]

Grief.

 

[cortz#9]

In such a timeline as you're describing does Mod become the dominant influence on Pop/Rock and subsequently, does that mean an earlier development and possible dominance of Punk? So instead of the constant arguments of Beatles vs. Stones, do we get just as vehement arguments of Kinks vs. 'Oo (or Small Faces, or any other Mod bands of the mid-60's before they stepped away from Mod and developed new styles)?

Good question, I can only think maybe. maybe Mod becomes bigger, not just in England but in the US too?
Maybe pop crooners stay in control of the charts longer, pretty people singing pretty song of nothing substantial, corporate run music industry just putting out product and no art.

I think 'Punk' only happened as a reaction to Progressive Rock, and the fact that the musicians playing were getting on a bit! As a result they lost their relevance to the 'youth' of the day, who wanted to put their own stamp on the music of the time.

I think in a ATL of no Beatles, it fundamentally alters, the music industry - the Beatles led the 'British Invasion' of the US Pop scene. They were the first to do pop concerts in large sports stadiums, without their example who would try. Because they led the advent of performing 'groups' - it may indeed just been a passing fad for some of them. While, the Everly Brothers continued their successful career.
Flower Power may still have happened, but accompanied more by Folk Music, rather than Soft Rock.

The Beach Boys would probably still be big, maybe even bigger but "Surf rock"might remain their main sound longer without the Beatles influence on them. Folk might be bigger because Dylan might not go electric or at least not when he did, maybe a few years down the line because again, no Beatles influence.

Dave Clark Five might not be all but forgotten today, as they would check most of the boxes of what the Beatles did thru 1966

The Dave Clark Five be bigger or maybe never make it at all. I once had a similar discussion to this with a friend we postulated that in a world with no Beatles, Herman's Hermits might have been the dominating Brit band of the 60's.

Without the Beatles, the Stones, Dylan, the Beach Boys and even artists like Hendrix might still become big stars but they will be fundamentally different than they were IOTL, not only would the Beatles influence on these acts be missing but the Beatles influence on the recording industry would be gone as well. Recording artists might not be given the freedom to experiment with their proven successful style and be discouraged from exploring new sounds, in fact most of these artists met conflict when they did try something different IOTL but they had the Beatles to point to as an example that people would continue to follow their favorite artists when they tried something new.

To quote Hendrix "The Beatles broke all the rules and after that you could do anything". I might not have that quote 100% correct but that was more or less what he meant.

 

[cortz#9]

Much better world amen

Boo! Boo on you!
All kidding aside, to each their own man but theirs a good chance that without the Beatles, one of your favorite bands wouldn't exist in the form that they do in this world.

 

[SavoyTruffle]

The Beach Boys become the poster child for pushing the envelope in the studio, I presume?

The thing is, even if you remove the Beatles' song catalog from the world and made John, Paul, George, and Ringo a bunch of relative unknowns, there's still a lot of changes to the musical world they did.

They weren't the first singer-songwriters, but they made the idea of putting songwriting on par with performing songs. Popular music before rock and roll was about how each artist interpreted a set of songs from a "standards" songbook. After rock burst on the scene, and especially with the Beatles' popularity, it soon became the norm for musicians to focus on self-written pieces and gave rock a DIY aesthetic that made it stand out compared to other genres.

And then starting with Rubber Soul those lads from Liverpool started to push the boundaries of what could be done with studio equipment. Previously studio sessions were just to record an artist's repertoire and create a substitute for people who couldn't go to live events; live albums were considered more important for quite a while. Then the Beatles came in and made the studio album the currency of rock music, taken to its logical conclusion by subgenres like progressive rock which eschewed the 45 rpm single and released albums that had one song per side. And in trying to keep up with their studio experimentation, the engineers at Abbey Road Studios came up with increasingly novel ways to record music. Automatic Double Tracking was created because John Lennon couldn't be arsed to sing twice into a mic to make his voice stand out. The practice of using DI on bass guitars came about in part because Paul McCartney didn't like how his bass was drowned out on the recordings.

So without the Beatles, there's a lot that would change musically. Perhaps another band takes up the slack in becoming pop culture titans, while yet another act revolutionizes the recording studio.

 

[cortz#9]

The Beach Boys become the poster child for pushing the envelope in the studio, I presume?

The thing is, even if you remove the Beatles' song catalog from the world and made John, Paul, George, and Ringo a bunch of relative unknowns, there's still a lot of changes to the musical world they did.

They weren't the first singer-songwriters, but they made the idea of putting songwriting on par with performing songs. Popular music before rock and roll was about how each artist interpreted a set of songs from a "standards" songbook. After rock burst on the scene, and especially with the Beatles' popularity, it soon became the norm for musicians to focus on self-written pieces and gave rock a DIY aesthetic that made it stand out compared to other genres.

And then starting with Rubber Soul those lads from Liverpool started to push the boundaries of what could be done with studio equipment. Previously studio sessions were just to record an artist's repertoire and create a substitute for people who couldn't go to live events; live albums were considered more important for quite a while. Then the Beatles came in and made the studio album the currency of rock music, taken to its logical conclusion by subgenres like progressive rock which eschewed the 45 rpm single and released albums that had one song per side. And in trying to keep up with their studio experimentation, the engineers at Abbey Road Studios came up with increasingly novel ways to record music. Automatic Double Tracking was created because John Lennon couldn't be arsed to sing twice into a mic to make his voice stand out. The practice of using DI on bass guitars came about in part because Paul McCartney didn't like how his bass was drowned out on the recordings.

So without the Beatles, there's a lot that would change musically. Perhaps another band takes up the slack in becoming pop culture titans, while yet another act revolutionizes the recording studio.

I agree with everything here. The Beach Boys might have pushed the recording envelope as you suggest but IOTL Brian Wilson met a lot of resistance to his new ideas from fellow band members, in this scenario he might meet even more from his record company and then some, so things for them could go differently.

I could see the Beach Boys being the game changers in the studio or I can just as easily see them recording more surf rock for a couple of more years.

 

[Khanzeer]

Boo! Boo on you!
All kidding aside, to each their own man but theirs a good chance that without the Beatles, one of your favorite bands wouldn't exist in the form that they do in this world.

That's probably true I like REM , the smiths, echo & bunnymen , Radiohead , depeche mode, replacements , husker du, sex pistols etc etc
And I'm sure they have some Beatles influence
Btw " pipes of peace " by McCartney great song esp since it depicts the Christmas truce

 

[marathag]

he engineers at Abbey Road Studios came up with increasingly novel ways to record music.

But that also finished the Beatles going on Tour. They didn't play anything from _Revolver_ on their last date in 1966, when from then on out, were a Studio Band only

Say what you will of Prog Rock, but those guys toured. ELP may have been pretentious asshats, but they put on a show

 

[Galba Otho Vitelius]

The Cold War goes hot sometime in the 1980s.

And the earlier commentators were good on the chances in popular music.