WI: No Beatles?
- Thread starter Zachariah
- Start date
I hadn't thought about bands like those but yeah I see where you're coming from. They would probably still be talented musicians but their influences would be very different.
They might be more into the Kinks, The Who, the Doors Maybe? Or some bands that never came to be on our timeline.
The members of these bands might not share the same tastes ITTL and form different bands with different members as well.
hammo1j
Donor
The Beatles were a kind of a bridge between black and white music.
Remember that McCartney was instrumental in promoting Hendrix and they fed off and fed Motown.
McCartney didn't invent the James Jamerson style of bass, which he freely acknowledges, but was its biggest promoter. (Listen to the difference between Hey Bulldog's bass and Love Me Do).
Other thing that always perplexes me is why McCartney is perceived as some arrogant nob, or the anti-Lennon which I dont agree with.
Has anyone seen the film yet?
Remember that McCartney was instrumental in promoting Hendrix and they fed off and fed Motown.
McCartney didn't invent the James Jamerson style of bass, which he freely acknowledges, but was its biggest promoter. (Listen to the difference between Hey Bulldog's bass and Love Me Do).
Other thing that always perplexes me is why McCartney is perceived as some arrogant nob, or the anti-Lennon which I dont agree with.
Has anyone seen the film yet?
I think a lot of fans and critics miss the key difference between Paul and John.
It's not that one was tough, and the other soft (Paul wrote Helter Skelter, John wrote Julia) .. or one was avant garde & the other commercial (Paul made McCartney 2, John wrote Instant Karma).. or even that one was personal & the other impersonal (although admittedly John tended towards personal statement songs far more than Paul's long line of songs about characters & scenarios he made up).
The key difference IMO is that Paul is naturally a workaholic, and John is naturally lazy. It's Paul's relentless work ethic (along with his naturally optimistic outlook) that rankles people.
I can see The Beach Boys more or less keeping the career trajectory they had IOTL roughly up to The Beach Boys Today. As long as Brian hears Be My Baby, that will spur a progression in his sound for a while after. I don't thing there'll be that much resistance regard leaving behind surf and car songs as long there's still relatable boy and girl stuff and Mike gets to write some of the lyrics.
I think The Four Seasons will be mostly similar to OTL, though we don't get Genuine Imitation Life Gazette at the end of the 60s, but it seems like only me and handful of other people I know like that album anyway.
I don't think the lack of Beatles will prevent Joe Meek from burning bridges, but I can see him having a slightly longer career in the charts.
I think The Four Seasons will be mostly similar to OTL, though we don't get Genuine Imitation Life Gazette at the end of the 60s, but it seems like only me and handful of other people I know like that album anyway.
I don't think the lack of Beatles will prevent Joe Meek from burning bridges, but I can see him having a slightly longer career in the charts.
I more or less agree with you, the Doors will also still be the Doors but will they get signed is another question.
I think all the bands that formed before 1964 wouldn't be affected too much, the changes would come as time go by, some bands might get different members and some might not form at all.
One could also make the argument that if Elvis had died at a young age that a lot of Brit bands including the Beatles wouldn't form and I say that as someone who isn't an Elvis fan.
David Bowie* formed his first band in 1962, I can see him somehow still making it in a world without Beatles. The question is does he have success earlier because of the Beatle-shaped gap in the market? We could also ask how much of Beatlemania was down to The Beatles themselves and how much was all that screaming just waiting for something to come along and let it out? We're still looking at a post-austerity Britain with a bunch of people who have had educations paid for by postwar welfare state emerging into the creative world of the 60s.
*No Beatles, no Monkees is Davy Jones still a less high profile stage actor and does our other David Jones not have to change his name to Bowie?
*No Beatles, no Monkees is Davy Jones still a less high profile stage actor and does our other David Jones not have to change his name to Bowie?
Good question and one we can never really answer but I agree that the people of both Britain and the US were in a state ready for something new, especially in the US after the JFK assassination.
But if it wasn't the Beatles, would it be someone else, someone we know IOTL or would it come a little later? I mentioned earlier that both the US and Britain were pretty anti rock at the time (the powers that be, not young people) and that the record companies of the time were putting out a lot pop singers who fell into the pretty face singing pretty love songs category (still popular today).
In this type of timeline I could easily see a band like Herman's Hermits being real big, a boy band success similar to the boy bands of today and something similar in the US could have happened as well, a more pop-ish and less amusing earlier version of the Monkees.
I'm glad I wasn't born in that universe.
hammo1j
Donor
There is no one we know of that could fill the gap left by the Beatles. They have about 100 good songs; the next closest has about 20.
There is another aspect that love for the Beatles is semi religious. Either you believe or you dont want to.
This is true of my friends who are divided into camps, none in between.
There is another aspect that love for the Beatles is semi religious. Either you believe or you dont want to.
This is true of my friends who are divided into camps, none in between.
I readily admit I am very biased when it comes to the Beatles, they are and always have been my favorite band but I can also recognize the importance and contributions of bands and performers that I am not a fond of or even hate. I don't like Elvis, just not my cup of tea but I realize how important he was to the history of Rock and Roll, remove Elvis and we could lose the Beatles and a lot of other bands both British and American.
Not even, he was pretty much done after he got out of the army. Even after he made his comeback in 68, it was doing his old hits and covers of other people's hits.
marathag
Banned
Was enough to sell records, and got people to goto concerts, a lot of concerts.
5 tours - 137 shows.....................8 tours - 158 shows
4 tours - 157 shows......................7 tours - 107 shows
5 tours - 165 shows......................11 tours - 129 shows
6 tours - 167 shows, 13 cancelled..5 tours - 55 shows 16 cancelled shows including 1 cancelled tour
In total chart songs, Elvis more than doubled up on The Beatles. Between 1956 and 1977, Presley put 134 sides in the “Top/Hot 100” charts. That’s an average of a little over 6 chart titles per year over 22 years. His first chart record, “Heartbreak Hotel,” entered the chart on March 3, 1956. His final entry on the Billboard singles chart came when “Way Down” debuted on June 25, 1977. It was still on the chart when Elvis died less than two months later.
During their career as a group, The Beatles placed a total of 62 titles on the “Hot 100” between 1964 and 1970. They debuted with “I Want to Hold Your Hand” on January 18, 1964, and made their final bow with “The Long and Winding Road,” which last appeared on the Billboard chart on July 25, 1970. Although The Beatles’ total chart records can’t compete with Elvis’s total, the group’s average per year is much higher. They averaged nearly 9 singles chart entries per year over their 7 years as a group.
Now let’s take a look at the individual performance of each performer’s “Top/Hot 100” records. As to be expected, due to his far greater number of total chart entries, Elvis has the advantage over The Beatles in most performance categories. Presley placed 102 titles in Billboard’s top 40, while The Beatles had 50 entries that made it that far up the chart. In the top 20, Elvis had 61 songs and The Beatles 37. Near the top of the chart, however, the Fab Four closed the gap and overtook Elvis. Presley still had more in the top 10 (38 to 31) and the top 5 (32 to 29), but at the coveted #1 position, The Beatles dominated Elvis with 20 chart-toppers to Presley’s 14.
...
In an interesting turnabout, however, Elvis actually spent more weeks atop Billboard singles chart than The Beatles, even though he had 6 fewer titles reach the top spot. Elvis’s 14 chart-toppers spent a combined total of 62 weeks at #1 on the “Top/Hot 100,” while The Beatles’ 20 #1s spent a total of 59 weeks in the top slot.
http://www.elvis-history-blog.com/elvis-beatles-billboard.html
Yeah he sold a lot of records, they don't call him the King for nothing but he didn't do anything revolutionary in the studio or break new ground and aside from inspiring a bunch of imitators, he didn't really influence that many artists, a lot of people did pick up the guitar because of him including the Beatles but he didn't have any real influence on bands like Pink Floyd, Queen, ELP, ELO, Black Sabbath and many others.Was enough to sell records, and got people to goto concerts, a lot of concerts.
5 tours - 137 shows.....................8 tours - 158 shows
4 tours - 157 shows......................7 tours - 107 shows
View attachment 468600
5 tours - 165 shows......................11 tours - 129 shows
6 tours - 167 shows, 13 cancelled..5 tours - 55 shows 16 cancelled shows including 1 cancelled tour
In total chart songs, Elvis more than doubled up on The Beatles. Between 1956 and 1977, Presley put 134 sides in the “Top/Hot 100” charts. That’s an average of a little over 6 chart titles per year over 22 years. His first chart record, “Heartbreak Hotel,” entered the chart on March 3, 1956. His final entry on the Billboard singles chart came when “Way Down” debuted on June 25, 1977. It was still on the chart when Elvis died less than two months later.
During their career as a group, The Beatles placed a total of 62 titles on the “Hot 100” between 1964 and 1970. They debuted with “I Want to Hold Your Hand” on January 18, 1964, and made their final bow with “The Long and Winding Road,” which last appeared on the Billboard chart on July 25, 1970. Although The Beatles’ total chart records can’t compete with Elvis’s total, the group’s average per year is much higher. They averaged nearly 9 singles chart entries per year over their 7 years as a group.
Now let’s take a look at the individual performance of each performer’s “Top/Hot 100” records. As to be expected, due to his far greater number of total chart entries, Elvis has the advantage over The Beatles in most performance categories. Presley placed 102 titles in Billboard’s top 40, while The Beatles had 50 entries that made it that far up the chart. In the top 20, Elvis had 61 songs and The Beatles 37. Near the top of the chart, however, the Fab Four closed the gap and overtook Elvis. Presley still had more in the top 10 (38 to 31) and the top 5 (32 to 29), but at the coveted #1 position, The Beatles dominated Elvis with 20 chart-toppers to Presley’s 14.
...
In an interesting turnabout, however, Elvis actually spent more weeks atop Billboard singles chart than The Beatles, even though he had 6 fewer titles reach the top spot. Elvis’s 14 chart-toppers spent a combined total of 62 weeks at #1 on the “Top/Hot 100,” while The Beatles’ 20 #1s spent a total of 59 weeks in the top slot.
http://www.elvis-history-blog.com/elvis-beatles-billboard.html
In all fairness though he was a fave of Robert Plant and Punk Rock would probably still come about just to counter Elvis and any very strong Elvis influenced bands that would spring up in such a timeline.