Something different! WI The Beatles and Stones never invaded America.
- Thread starter Gimple
- Start date
Who knows if the Beatles and Stones would've even have become as MEGA popular as they did without the "British Invasion?" John probably wouldn't have gotten killed either, and he probably wouldn't have met Yoko Ono for that matter. Who knows if lack of mega success would've decreased Keith Richards' drug habits (that's a scary though right there, a less-stoned out of his gourd Keith Richards) or not.
Now the biggest question is what effect would a lack of Beatles and Stones have upon the American Music Scene, as well as youth culture. It would've probably have continued to develop along the lines of Elvis, Johnny Cash, etc.
What happens after THAT? I dunno... it really is hard to tell how things woulda changed. Would there be a Doors? A Jimi Hendrix? A Janis Joplin? Would the punk rock scene even emerge?
And if that's a big NO, would there then even be a Hippie Movement? Would almost all of America get behind the push to win in Vietnam?
Now the biggest question is what effect would a lack of Beatles and Stones have upon the American Music Scene, as well as youth culture. It would've probably have continued to develop along the lines of Elvis, Johnny Cash, etc.
What happens after THAT? I dunno... it really is hard to tell how things woulda changed. Would there be a Doors? A Jimi Hendrix? A Janis Joplin? Would the punk rock scene even emerge?
And if that's a big NO, would there then even be a Hippie Movement? Would almost all of America get behind the push to win in Vietnam?
Basically, the Beatles and Rolling Stones did not create youth culture. They were, though, key components of its sound.
The early sixties were a time when the overall tempo of popular music in the US would slow down for a couple of years. The cutting edge of rock and roll would divide itself between Detroit and London, with neither side quite aware of the relative significance of their work.
The fall of 1963 was the first year that all levels of grade school and high school were filled with children of the Baby Boom. A youth culture had emerged in the fifties with Elvis, Buddy Holly, James Dean and the beatniks. It was ready to take center stage in the sixties with the influx of the emerging generation.
For the Beatles not to invade America, we must assume the group never formed. The same for the Rolling Stones. Now, there were too many other artists to completely prevent an influx of British music. You still have the Dave Clark Five, the Who and the Kinks, to name a few. I would expect a gradual influx and mixing of British rock with American Soul. Keep in mind the American civil rights movement is brewing at the same time.
There would be a Jimi Hendrix, a Bob Dylan and The Doors. They just might not sound exactly the same as we remember. The youth counterculture movement would still emerge in the mid and late sixties; whether they would still be called "hippies" is anybody's guess. Even without the Beatles, long hair might still emerge as a protest to the war and military dress codes. We must remember that the number of people who participated directly in the hippie movement was very small compared to the number who emulated portions of its music and style.
What about punk rock? By the time you get to the seventies, rock music will have evolved. As for the punk trend, who knows. When you take away major contributors like the Beatles and the Rolling Stones, you are going to change the sound of contemporary music for decades to come.
The early sixties were a time when the overall tempo of popular music in the US would slow down for a couple of years. The cutting edge of rock and roll would divide itself between Detroit and London, with neither side quite aware of the relative significance of their work.
The fall of 1963 was the first year that all levels of grade school and high school were filled with children of the Baby Boom. A youth culture had emerged in the fifties with Elvis, Buddy Holly, James Dean and the beatniks. It was ready to take center stage in the sixties with the influx of the emerging generation.
For the Beatles not to invade America, we must assume the group never formed. The same for the Rolling Stones. Now, there were too many other artists to completely prevent an influx of British music. You still have the Dave Clark Five, the Who and the Kinks, to name a few. I would expect a gradual influx and mixing of British rock with American Soul. Keep in mind the American civil rights movement is brewing at the same time.
There would be a Jimi Hendrix, a Bob Dylan and The Doors. They just might not sound exactly the same as we remember. The youth counterculture movement would still emerge in the mid and late sixties; whether they would still be called "hippies" is anybody's guess. Even without the Beatles, long hair might still emerge as a protest to the war and military dress codes. We must remember that the number of people who participated directly in the hippie movement was very small compared to the number who emulated portions of its music and style.
What about punk rock? By the time you get to the seventies, rock music will have evolved. As for the punk trend, who knows. When you take away major contributors like the Beatles and the Rolling Stones, you are going to change the sound of contemporary music for decades to come.
Basically, Britains music industry would be as under appreciated as its film industry, which is a shame since Hollywood seems to wank the idea of happy endings in a majority of films and Brits don't.
Elvis Presley and Buddy Holly were the white faces of rock and roll in the fifties. Even without the Beatles and the Rolling Stones, British rock music well developed in 1963. Americans were getting tired of the slow, stale sound of pop music at the time, and an influx of something new was inevitable.
Without John and Paul effectively killing the practice of using outside song writers, the music scene would be much improved.
Do you really befieve that!?
That is the 'music scene' would be improved, if performers relied on outside music.
Many of the British groups - like the 'Stones, Kinks, Animals, Yardbirds etc., (though curiously, not the Beatles) were heavily influenced by 'Blues' music - and gave credit to these influences. Wasn't it at the Ed Sullivan show that the Stones referred to 'Lightning' Hopkins as a major influence - to have the reply - 'where's he from?'
Hence, the cultural heritage of Black music was brought to the fore for white Americans to listen to, to absorb, and to influence others.
To an extent the british pop group invasion of the sixties - killed traditional folk music. Yes, there maybe still some about - Pete Seger still performs. But it became, beatlised, it became electric.
They changed as well the way music was seen, Elvis went to Vegas - how many people saw him there? The Beatles went to Shea (?) Stadium and were seen by tens of thousands - and thats the way it happens now, major artists be they Madonna or U2 fill large open air arenas for concerts.
That's because American pop music slowed down as a result of a conservative backlash around 1959-1962. The British kept up the pace, as did soul music.
If anything youth culture is even more political. The distant handshake that the Beatles maintained with the status quo is underestimated in my opinion. They influenced a spiritual and personal rather than political and communal channeling of the energy of a generation.
Folk music's been mentioned briefly here, and certainly it continues to morph and grow ITTL.
As for the practice of maintaining compartmentalized roles for singers and songwriters, their might indeed be a future for an entirely bubblegum-y pop sound and jump-starting the pop music mass culture sonic hegemony we saw rise in the 70s (and of course producing its share of Carole Kings along the way.)
But can you hypnotize kids with music to stay loyal? I don't think so. All the cultural reinforcement in the world hasn't stopped Bush's actions from receiving a big fat Boo from the under 25 crowd.
More likely their feelings about the world lead kids to seek new types of music rather than the other way around.
An interesting butterfly might involve Barry Gordy. He was always looking to sell to the wider market and not make his label a niche for African American consumers (performers, yes, consumers only as part of a larger whole.) If white teens start yearning for a new sound to fit their mood and the folk musicians open their eyes to blues and the like, perhaps he'll abandon his apolitical selling points and encourage Motown to become the voice of the youth movement as well as of African Americans. Make a profit and promote racial harmony. A significantly different civil rights movement occurs.
Dusty Springfield and The Foundations lead the British Invasion
Folk music's been mentioned briefly here, and certainly it continues to morph and grow ITTL.
As for the practice of maintaining compartmentalized roles for singers and songwriters, their might indeed be a future for an entirely bubblegum-y pop sound and jump-starting the pop music mass culture sonic hegemony we saw rise in the 70s (and of course producing its share of Carole Kings along the way.)
But can you hypnotize kids with music to stay loyal? I don't think so. All the cultural reinforcement in the world hasn't stopped Bush's actions from receiving a big fat Boo from the under 25 crowd.
More likely their feelings about the world lead kids to seek new types of music rather than the other way around.
An interesting butterfly might involve Barry Gordy. He was always looking to sell to the wider market and not make his label a niche for African American consumers (performers, yes, consumers only as part of a larger whole.) If white teens start yearning for a new sound to fit their mood and the folk musicians open their eyes to blues and the like, perhaps he'll abandon his apolitical selling points and encourage Motown to become the voice of the youth movement as well as of African Americans. Make a profit and promote racial harmony. A significantly different civil rights movement occurs.
Dusty Springfield and The Foundations lead the British Invasion
Nah. The punk scene will do just fine. Proto-punk was already emerging by the time the Beatles invaded. Both the MC5 and the Velvet Underground emerged in 64, and would help create their own respective underground scenes. The MC5 would help begit the stooges, and the Velvet Underground would influence every one from Patti Smith to the David Bowie. The foundation is still there, its just up to butter flys to mess with what gets built upon it.