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.Cheap Trick, Electric Light Orchestra, and Oasis might still exist, but sound extremely different.
I entered September 26, 1983 and discovered the tale. One Russian named Stanislav Petrov had the duty to launch the death machines into the sky and when he'd seen evidence that American death machines where in the air he did not do his duty, but waited, convinced it couldn't be Americans launching such devices, that it must be an error of his detection machines. It turned out he was correct and saved the world from the destruction that I had seen in other futures.
Clearly in all others he had not doubted what his machines told him and did his duty, thus ending the world.
What had made the difference? Why did Petrov in this future not do his duty, but hesitated?
Something must be different in this one reality.
That was when I discovered a group of musicians in the 1960s had conquered the world of entertainment, but only in the one reality, for they were from Liverpool. I was still perplexed. Until I came across, in 2019, on the information device in the library a mixture of Edison's two inventions of the Nicklelodian and the Phonograph in what was called a video. One of the musicians had used his music to send a message to the world.
I cannot be sure, but I believe this was the difference. There is little doubt that Petrov would have heard this. The entire world did. It may have been enough to make him doubt war was the answer.
It was after this I went and explored the future in the one timeline where humanity continued. That adventure I have published in my book, "The Time Machine." The future of humanity may be dark and sad, but at least in that one possible future that sad future was millennia away.
Other thing that always perplexes me is why McCartney is perceived as some arrogant nob, or the anti-Lennon which I dont agree with.
I more or less agree with you, the Doors will also still be the Doors but will they get signed is another question.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.
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.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?
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.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.
"Telstar" was Margaret Thatcher's favourite pop record.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.
There is no one we know of that could fill the gap left by the Beatles.
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.Elvis
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.
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