The Beatles were never discovered!

Time for discussion of something other than alternative wars and politics!

What would popular music and rock n roll be like without the Fab Four?

I do think, however, that for such a scenario to be plausible you would have to say that John Lennon and Paul McCartney were never born. The reason is that, I think, they were both such talented songwriters that their eventual discovery was pretty much inevitable. Even if they had never met, they probably would have still made somewhat of an impact on their own.

Just food for thought. :p
 
Time for discussion of something other than alternative wars and politics!

What would popular music and rock n roll be like without the Fab Four?

I do think, however, that for such a scenario to be plausible you would have to say that John Lennon and Paul McCartney were never born. The reason is that, I think, they were both such talented songwriters that their eventual discovery was pretty much inevitable. Even if they had never met, they probably would have still made somewhat of an impact on their own.

Just food for thought. :p
The Four Seasons thought they had a Lock on The 60s Market, Perhaps in TTL they Have their Chance ...

As Such 50s Rock Gets to Lead Directly to Disco, without The MAJOR Disruptions Caused by The Psychedelic Era ...

However, if The Vietnam War is Still Fought a Counter-Culture will Probably Develop, But it Most Likely will be Far More Comprehensible to their Elders than The Hippie Movement was!
 
If The Beatles had never met or been discovered... my life would be a much less happy place...

But honestly, I think that another good Beatle what if would be what if The Beatles had never met up with Ringo and had kept their original drummer?
 
If The Beatles had never met or been discovered... my life would be a much less happy place...

But honestly, I think that another good Beatle what if would be what if The Beatles had never met up with Ringo and had kept their original drummer?
WELCOME, to AH ...

Not to be Pushy or Anything, But that May be Better Received as a Seperate Thread, ok ...

As for this One, Have Fun Posting!
 
If there isn't a Beatles that changes a few things. There possibly isn't a British invasion. If there is, the early leading group is The Dave Clark Five and then maybe later, The Rolling Stones.

Torqumada
 
You have to look at all the number two records/Singers, the Beatles held out of the number one spot.
The Four Seasons are The Big One ...

They Hit Number One Just as The 60s Started, But Never Quite Recovered from The Beatles' Appearance on The Ed Sullivan Show ...

The Irony is, After Jay Black Inspired All The Old Groups to Come out of Retirement in 1968, Frankie Vali's SOLO Offering "Grease" Rejoined Disco to its 50s Roots in 1975!

:eek:
 
It has interesting long term effects when you look at all the musicians/bands that named The Beatles as their main influence. Motorhead, Black Sabbath, and KISS come immediately to mind.

And where would my life be without those three? :eek:
 
It has interesting long term effects when you look at all the musicians/bands that named The Beatles as their main influence. Motorhead, Black Sabbath, and KISS come immediately to mind.

And where would my life be without those three? :eek:
A Lil' Less Metal ...

And a Whole Lot More Doo-Wop ...

Yeah I Know, SHOOT you Now!
 
The Beatles were only one of many groups around back then. I know, I was there, they were the ones the media of the day concentrated on. They could have picked on one of at least half a dozen other bands and they would have been lauded as the "greatest".

Personally I was never over impressed by the Beatles and yes I did see them. I emphasis see because you could hardly hear them over the noise of the screaming girls. There were far better live acts around and writers as good or better than Lennon and McCartney.
 
Talent

Agreed, a lot of talent around then, music was changing.
However, the Fab Four surely were quicker and more successful in the US than others might have been.
Epstein took the edge of their image, suited them up (not too different from the Beach Boys then), made then more mainstream to that market.
But look how The Kinks fared in the US in the mid 60's, they were effectively banned for some years! So if they'd have been first.......
(Without the Beatles, Elvis get's less paranoid, Mike Love of the Beach Boys less bitter).

I think that even without the Beatles, we'd have still heard of McCartney.
In one of his short stories, Steven Baxter alluded to this, in a story where an alternative is presented to Glenn Miller in 1944, if he does not get on that plane.
By the mid/late 60's it says, Miller's style has spread further, no rock n roll, other younger exponents of it come along, and Baxter mentions McCartney.
Spot on, he was always the most mainstream Beatle, if Big Band style was still the main form of popular music into the 60's, as a writer/performer, I could see him making it.
Lennon being more obscure, an angry young man, probably a poet and/or radical playwright.
 
Agreed, a lot of talent around then, music was changing.
However, the Fab Four surely were quicker and more successful in the US than others might have been.

I don't think so, vacuums get filled up rapidly and look at the enduring appeal of Pete Townshend and The Who. Eventually far more significant than The Beatles.
 
If The Beatles had never met or been discovered... my life would be a much less happy place...

But honestly, I think that another good Beatle what if would be what if The Beatles had never met up with Ringo and had kept their original drummer?
Being, I think, the resident Beatlemaniac, I want to take this one, if you don't mind jellobunnies. To save Pete Best you have to get them a Decca contract, which actually isn't hard.
 
Top