Live and let die: an alternate set of Beatles

[Evil_evol]

I have notcied that most of the posts on this board is concerning the "what-ifs" of military history, so I thought I'd contribute with something slighty different.

I have been thnking of this scenario for a couple of days and I was wondering what you think about it. Let's say that neither Ringo Starr nor Paul McCartney join the Beatles (cause: let's say death or something similar) and Pete Best and Stuart Sutcliffe (who does not pass away in the early sixties) take their places on drums and bass.

With no Paul McCartney, their music would definitely be unlike that of OTL, right? How would this affect John Lennon and George Harrison? The british invasion led by the rolling stones?

No matter the exact details, we can definitely be certain that the music of the latter 20th would be somewhat different from what we hear today

Now, what are your thoughts?

 

[Alois]

How about "the American Invasion"? Instead of British musicians coming here for fame and fortune (those that do have only moderate success because the spearhead, the Beatles, has been lost), Elvis and Jerry Lee Lewis move to England?

 

[Proctol]

Wasn't Charles Manson going to be one of "The Monkeys"? If he had, would Sharon Tate still have been sacrificed?

 

[Evil_evol]

Wasn't Charles Manson going to be one of "The Monkeys"? If he had, would Sharon Tate still have been sacrificed?

I don't she would, since the killings at Cielo drive took place as a revenge, Polanski and Tate had apparently been treating him badly when he went there wanting to talk to the producer living there before them.

The monkeys were nontheless just a crappy Beatles rip-off, and with no Beatles, no monkeys right? However, many of the deed that were executed by the "Manson family" were inspired by the music of the Beatles; they ever wrote Helter Skelter on Sharon Tate's refrigrator.

You do have a point, would Tate have lived to see her 30th birthday if the Beatles were around?

 

[Torqumada]

To begin with its Monkees, not Monkeys. Secondly, though they were designed as the American counterpart to the Beatles and their first two albums were indeed manufactured for them, they were just as popular as the Beatles when both bands were at their highpoints. For example, the year that Seargent Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club band came out, it and the Monkee's album Headqaurters ( the first the guys played, sang and produced fully themselves and put out a week apart) spent the entire summer swapping the the number 1 and number 2 spots on the Billboard album charts. The first two albums the Monkees put out had their classic "hits" with such songs as Last Train to Clarksville, I wanna be free, I'm a believer, Mary, Mary etc... Those are the the sort of songs that most people associate with the Monkees. However, starting with Headquarters, the members of the band were trying to prove their worth as true artists. However, while their music is artistically well doen, it wasn't what their fans were expecting out them (fans wanted more of the 1st two albums) and became one of the reasons the show and the band fell from prominence. If you can get your hands on the boxed set, you will find there is a great deal of very good music on there, not just the stuff from their first two albums. The Beatles had the luxury of being able to be both commercial AND artistic. I think Paul's influence helped the Beatles be a bit more commercial, while Lennon's had the more artistic influence. I am a big fan of both bands. I inehrited my Mother's record collection when I was young and own albums of both groups.

Alos just to clarify: Live and Let Die is a song by Paul MCcartney after the Beatles were done as a band. Maybe you should choose Let it Be as a better title.

Torqumada

 

[Evil_evol]

I am indeed impressed by your knowledge about the MONKEES (sorry about that one, mate), but the question is wheter the monkees ever would have been put togheter if it was'nt beacuse of the sucess of the Beatles. Surely they developed their own sound initially, but would they even been playing together if there was no british invasion?

By the way, you're right about the thread title, yes i know that live and let die is a song by the Wings, but I did'nt come up with anything more suiting, until now. "Let it be" really fits better with the context. Thanks.

 

[Torqumada]

The Beatles had an effect on music overall. Int he beginning it was more commercial, leading to artistic and social later. However, they weren't the only band coming out of Britain at that time. The Dave Clark 5 was almost as big as the Beatles early on and stayed influential. The Rolling stones had the bad boy image and hard edge that many associated with rock and roll. The BeeGees had a very big following in England, less so in the US because everyone thought their initial sound WAS the Beatles. All of these bands may have been able to fill some aspects that the Beatles did, but I don't think they would have dominated the field like the Beatles did. One of the things that may have happened is an increase in the poularity of Americna artists and the effect that might hav eon their music. With no Beatles to push them creatively, we might not get such albums as the Beach Boy's Pet Sounds. Also, the way albums are made and produced would be different. Searget Pepper's Loney Hearts Club Band was the first concept album, where all of the songs fit a central theme that was a commercail success. Prior to that, albums were just a collection of songs. I can look at the albums in my collection and see the difference between those before and after 1967. The Beach Boys, Frankie Valli and the 4 seasons and others might all have a higher place on Rock and Roll legend and commercial success since it was the Beatles that were keeping them from achieving #1 hits (Beach Boys only had 2 number #1 hits in their careers and one of those was in the 80's).

Now the big question has to be: If there are no Beatles that result in the creation of the Monkees, do we still get the Partridge Family. (Probably since the Partridge Family was based off of another rock family called the Cowsills.)

Torqumada

 

[Diamond]

I think its much harder to come up with a good ATL based on a pop culture event; you really have to work your imagination and be much more creative. The end results can be fascinating though.

As an example, my mom and dad met through mutual friends at a Beatles concert in the late 60s. Now, its possible that they would have met anyway, but their interactions would have been subtley different; while I still might have been born, would it really be 'me'? You can apply this to many many different facets - Robert Redford (for example) is never inspired by music of the British Invasion to make certain of his films; without those movies being made in the same way, the next generation of actors is influenced differently, and so on and so forth.

And as far as popular American music - I wonder what the next big influence would've been if the British Invasion hadn't happened? Maybe a Spanish, or French, or Mexican artist who, in OTL, never got a record deal because the studios were too focused on the Brits, in TTL makes it big, generating a whole new direction of popular music?

 

[Proctol]

Brian Epstein was the discoverer & manager of the Beatles. He had to endure anti-semitic taunts from Lennon, & is said to have had a gay relationship with him. Epstein's last words in 1967 were "I have everything", & then he died, it is said by overdose suicide (though barbiturate "suicides" were common in those days eg Judy Garland & Tony Hancock).
http://www.brianepstein.com/

With a different, less talented manager, would the Beatles have remained the Liverpudlian Scouse "insects" that they were named after?! Or could even more talent have been rung out of them?

 

[Melvin Loh]

Mark Rivera ?

Heck, what about if Mark Rivera, Billy Joel's sax player and multitalented musician, became 1 of the Beatles as I suggested in my previous thread ?

 

[Proctol]

Yoko Ono, a product of a prominent Japanese military and financial powerhouse family, was planted in the Beatles to break them up. In this, her ever obnoxious presence did the trick. Her next stage was to turn everbody's choice as the most intellectual Beatle, into a NWO ass. It wasn't long before she had Lennon posing naked on his most embarassing album, sitting in a burlap sack during a bed-in for peace and sending acorns to world leaders for motives less than clear then and downright ridiculous now. And the more Lennon became a clown, the more his programmed obsession with Ono increased.

 

[phil5775]

Lennon meeting McCartney was the catalyst for the whole Beatle phenomenon. It was that partnership that created it. Without either, no Beatles. The truth is that Harrison, Starr, Best, and Sutcliffe were, for all intent, sidemen. Without John or Paul, there would be nothing for Brian Epstein or George Martin to work with.