What If: Beatles Never Form
- Thread starter ZombieSlayer54
- Start date
- Status
Wolfpaw
Banned
What if the Beatles just never make it to America? They stay in the British music scene. Maybe tours to Cyprus and Aden and Hong Kong? Or Rhodesia 
Or would the Beatles likely stay in the European scene? West Germany-France, perhaps eventually migrating to Paris? Hell, maybe they hit up Beirut while it's still hopping. It'd be a kick if John wound up with Dalida instead of Yoko The Beatles in the Med is kinda cool to think about.
Also, this thread reminds me why I love His Imperial Majesty Norton.
EDIT: apologies for the thread necro, but it's an interesting topic.
Or would the Beatles likely stay in the European scene? West Germany-France, perhaps eventually migrating to Paris? Hell, maybe they hit up Beirut while it's still hopping. It'd be a kick if John wound up with Dalida instead of Yoko
The Beatles in the Med is kinda cool to think about.Also, this thread reminds me why I love His Imperial Majesty Norton.
EDIT: apologies for the thread necro, but it's an interesting topic.
What if the Beatles just never make it to America? They stay in the British music scene. Maybe tours to Cyprus and Aden and Hong Kong? Or Rhodesia
The British invasion occurs, but much later with the Stones being at its vanguard.Their records become quite popular as bootlegs amongst the hip and in the know within the New York scene. Their music becomes influential, in the sense that it inspired a hundred subsequent bands, but their music never reaches the point of ubiquity. The Beatles break up earlier than in OTL, and its members go on and have their peak creativity during the 70's performing in different and more popular acts .
I don't think there's any chance for a British invasion, and I'm quite knowledgeable on the subject.
The British Invasion didn't happen because America loved British music (i.e. an amalgamation of American music through a British lens), it happened because America loved the Beatles.
And America loved the Beatles after Britain did.
The British Invasion occurred after British studio moguls began to profit from the unlikely success of the developing Mersey Sound, of which The Beatles were the only real vanguard. Then, and only then, did Beatlemania in Britain transfer to the British Invasion in the U.S.
And even that was an enormous long shot.
Before the Beatles were even widely played in America, George Harrison visited his sister Louise in Benton, IL (much of my family's home region, Little Egypt) and was relieved to find no one knew who he was, really.
It was only months later that the Invasion happened.
So, no Beatles, no chance of Liverpool (a backwater) becoming nationally known in Britain as this hip music town and therefore, no momentum for British rock/pop artists to do anything at all in the States.
And no British Invasion means no Garage movement, which means with all the first generation rockers dead, Christian, in jail, in the Army, or married to their cousins, the pop charts will continue to be filled with milky white, harmless rock imitations until someone gains success rocking the boat - which could take a while. The butterflies here are unbelievable and tragic regardless of how much you like the Beatles or don't.
YOUR music is butterflied away too. Deal with it.
But that's not even the best part:
No Beatles means no one takes the risk on artists who write their own songs, i.e. expect a lot of unoriginal artists because it's safe and profitable.
It also means no experimentation in the studio. I'm not even talking about the trippy stuff, I'm talking: "Play your bass part and get out. You have no say on loud it is, how it's produced, etc."
Producers will continue to hold the power that the record companies haven't already claimed, leaving the artists as pretty faces with little to no talent.
Black music, however, takes a big boost initially.
Motown won't get as easily synthesized after Barret Strong's hit in 1960, leaving Black musicians who play soul as the only way for white kids to hear it.
This is good and bad:
It's good because, like rock and roll, there is once again a movement that blacks can embrace and whites can sneak off and listen to.
IOTL, the last real black and white union in music was fifties rock and roll (en masse), and after whites took over rock completely during the British Invasion, blacks predominantly listened to black music (from motown to hip hop today) and whites predominantly listened to white music (from British rock to whatever it is whites predominantly listen to now. Country? The Pop charts? Shudder...).
No Beatles means the next wave of rock has a good opportunity to be as biracial as original rock.
Of course, it's bad because there won't be near as much musical competition. A black artist won't have the incentive to do black music better than whites (believe it or not, the songwriters at Motown spent years trying to out-Rubber Soul the Beatles) because whites simply won't play it to begin with. Problem solved on their end, but as listeners, both racial cultures will play it a lot safer.
I could see funk not existing because the desire and ability to experiment with soul won't exist.
No Beatles may mean someone else comes along to replace their role, but it may not be for decades, and in the meantime, with less competition and artists unable to be directly involved in their work, it's going to suck.
In short: Good thing there was Beatles, even if you don't like 'em.
EDIT: By the way, The Stone only got signed because George Harrison told Decca to sign them at a talent showcase where he was the judge. Still smarting from their passing over of the Beatles two or three years before, the company jumped on it. If this doesn't happen then the Stones (who were on the verge of giving up as one single band) would have split between Brian Jones (who had talent) and Mick Jagger (who didn't, but had swagger). Keith would be torn between the two, but as Bill would have gone with Brian, so too could Keith, leaving Mick perhaps fronting another Crawdaddy Club favorite, like the Yardbirds or later the Small Faces.
They are unrelated bands, certainly, but no Beatles basically also means no Stones. Sorry.
The British Invasion didn't happen because America loved British music (i.e. an amalgamation of American music through a British lens), it happened because America loved the Beatles.
And America loved the Beatles after Britain did.
The British Invasion occurred after British studio moguls began to profit from the unlikely success of the developing Mersey Sound, of which The Beatles were the only real vanguard. Then, and only then, did Beatlemania in Britain transfer to the British Invasion in the U.S.
And even that was an enormous long shot.
Before the Beatles were even widely played in America, George Harrison visited his sister Louise in Benton, IL (much of my family's home region, Little Egypt) and was relieved to find no one knew who he was, really.
It was only months later that the Invasion happened.
So, no Beatles, no chance of Liverpool (a backwater) becoming nationally known in Britain as this hip music town and therefore, no momentum for British rock/pop artists to do anything at all in the States.
And no British Invasion means no Garage movement, which means with all the first generation rockers dead, Christian, in jail, in the Army, or married to their cousins, the pop charts will continue to be filled with milky white, harmless rock imitations until someone gains success rocking the boat - which could take a while. The butterflies here are unbelievable and tragic regardless of how much you like the Beatles or don't.
YOUR music is butterflied away too. Deal with it.
But that's not even the best part:
No Beatles means no one takes the risk on artists who write their own songs, i.e. expect a lot of unoriginal artists because it's safe and profitable.
It also means no experimentation in the studio. I'm not even talking about the trippy stuff, I'm talking: "Play your bass part and get out. You have no say on loud it is, how it's produced, etc."
Producers will continue to hold the power that the record companies haven't already claimed, leaving the artists as pretty faces with little to no talent.
Black music, however, takes a big boost initially.
Motown won't get as easily synthesized after Barret Strong's hit in 1960, leaving Black musicians who play soul as the only way for white kids to hear it.
This is good and bad:
It's good because, like rock and roll, there is once again a movement that blacks can embrace and whites can sneak off and listen to.
IOTL, the last real black and white union in music was fifties rock and roll (en masse), and after whites took over rock completely during the British Invasion, blacks predominantly listened to black music (from motown to hip hop today) and whites predominantly listened to white music (from British rock to whatever it is whites predominantly listen to now. Country? The Pop charts? Shudder...).
No Beatles means the next wave of rock has a good opportunity to be as biracial as original rock.
Of course, it's bad because there won't be near as much musical competition. A black artist won't have the incentive to do black music better than whites (believe it or not, the songwriters at Motown spent years trying to out-Rubber Soul the Beatles) because whites simply won't play it to begin with. Problem solved on their end, but as listeners, both racial cultures will play it a lot safer.
I could see funk not existing because the desire and ability to experiment with soul won't exist.
No Beatles may mean someone else comes along to replace their role, but it may not be for decades, and in the meantime, with less competition and artists unable to be directly involved in their work, it's going to suck.
In short: Good thing there was Beatles, even if you don't like 'em.
EDIT: By the way, The Stone only got signed because George Harrison told Decca to sign them at a talent showcase where he was the judge. Still smarting from their passing over of the Beatles two or three years before, the company jumped on it. If this doesn't happen then the Stones (who were on the verge of giving up as one single band) would have split between Brian Jones (who had talent) and Mick Jagger (who didn't, but had swagger). Keith would be torn between the two, but as Bill would have gone with Brian, so too could Keith, leaving Mick perhaps fronting another Crawdaddy Club favorite, like the Yardbirds or later the Small Faces.
They are unrelated bands, certainly, but no Beatles basically also means no Stones. Sorry.
Last edited:
Pet Sounds probably wouldn't exist as we hear it, Brian was greatly influenced by Rubber Soul which he felt was the best album ever at the time and is still his favourite.
Goodness knows what would happen to George Martin, before the Beatles Parlophone was a bit of a failing label full of novelty records from the Goons and one-hit wonders up against the big label at EMI, Columbia.
The Who would be about as they were influenced by the Kinks who would also be about, and would probably be much more popular. I believe the Kinks are probably the ones least effected by the lack of the Beatles as Ray Davies wasn't really influenced by the psychedelic period or anything by the Beatles etc - Ray Davies even wrote a scathing review of Revolver at the time, and had experimented himself, Davies introduced the first sitar-style drone sound with See My Friends after stopping off in India on a tour.
This is where I think it gets interesting, Brian Epstein I believe was offered to manage the Rolling Stones but didn't OTL and passed the group onto Andrew Oldham - who was the Beatles publicist. No Beatles means Oldham wouldn't have been the publicist and would probably not meet the Stones and take over them, whilst Decca gave them very favourable terms after they regretted not taking on the Beatles.
Decca also infamously said 'guitar music was on the way out'. The Rolling Stones would probably be signed by someone else though, but would end up quite differently.
Paul would probably end up as a cabaret singer or teacher
George would be an electrician or engineer
John I don't know would he'd end up as
Goodness knows what would happen to George Martin, before the Beatles Parlophone was a bit of a failing label full of novelty records from the Goons and one-hit wonders up against the big label at EMI, Columbia.
The Who would be about as they were influenced by the Kinks who would also be about, and would probably be much more popular. I believe the Kinks are probably the ones least effected by the lack of the Beatles as Ray Davies wasn't really influenced by the psychedelic period or anything by the Beatles etc - Ray Davies even wrote a scathing review of Revolver at the time, and had experimented himself, Davies introduced the first sitar-style drone sound with See My Friends after stopping off in India on a tour.
This is where I think it gets interesting, Brian Epstein I believe was offered to manage the Rolling Stones but didn't OTL and passed the group onto Andrew Oldham - who was the Beatles publicist. No Beatles means Oldham wouldn't have been the publicist and would probably not meet the Stones and take over them, whilst Decca gave them very favourable terms after they regretted not taking on the Beatles.
Decca also infamously said 'guitar music was on the way out'. The Rolling Stones would probably be signed by someone else though, but would end up quite differently.
Paul would probably end up as a cabaret singer or teacher
George would be an electrician or engineer
John I don't know would he'd end up as
This would also mean no music videos, at least in their current forms. The Beatles were one of (if not the) first to make concept videos (the beatles cartoon also had stuff that could be somewhat considered music videos as well). Without music video, that obviously means no mtv, meaning that the only way to see your fav. band perform were live perfomances on variety shows.
Goldwater64
Banned
Ed Sullivan has an uneventful flight home from the UK in late 1963. His show never exposes millions of Americans to the British sound. America has no carefree distraction from the JFK assassination. Surf rock, folk music and girl groups remain popular for a little while longer before fizzling out. After that, there really is no telling what happens.
You won't get the DC5 or Herman's Hermits to stand in for them (That'd be way too much like a Turtledove book or, Heaven-forbid, that God-awful Confederate States of America film). At best, they'll be an analogue until 1965 or so before the novelty wears away. British rock might get another band to "pave the way", but it probably just remains as "2 guitar and bass" covers of 50s rock songs and R&B numbers. Bands like the Who will probably start getting louder and experimenting, but they won't get nearly as much exposure. Keef Richards himself says that the 'Stones wouldn't have made it in the 'States if the Beatles hadn't lowered our guard.
Garage bands won't be as big as they were, and the archetype of the "self-contained, 2 guitar and bass rock band that writes its own songs" might never come to fruition. Motown will probably still go on. Brian Wilson might experiment, but he won't have Rubber Soul to inspire Pet Sounds.
I could see a lot of tiny, easily overlooked things leading to much larger butterflies. People also definitely underestimate the "rock and roll" of the Fab Four. Idiots will muse "Oh, they were just pitiful, corporate, bubblegum pop", but in 1963, "Twist and Shout" was hard rock, and songs could be catchy without being manufactured and soulless.
EDIT:
In conclusion, there are two things I know for certain.
1. This won't result in another British band who can "really rawk" taking their place.
2. The music scene ITTL will be almost completely unrecognizable within a few years.
You won't get the DC5 or Herman's Hermits to stand in for them (That'd be way too much like a Turtledove book or, Heaven-forbid, that God-awful Confederate States of America film). At best, they'll be an analogue until 1965 or so before the novelty wears away. British rock might get another band to "pave the way", but it probably just remains as "2 guitar and bass" covers of 50s rock songs and R&B numbers. Bands like the Who will probably start getting louder and experimenting, but they won't get nearly as much exposure. Keef Richards himself says that the 'Stones wouldn't have made it in the 'States if the Beatles hadn't lowered our guard.
Garage bands won't be as big as they were, and the archetype of the "self-contained, 2 guitar and bass rock band that writes its own songs" might never come to fruition. Motown will probably still go on. Brian Wilson might experiment, but he won't have Rubber Soul to inspire Pet Sounds.
I could see a lot of tiny, easily overlooked things leading to much larger butterflies. People also definitely underestimate the "rock and roll" of the Fab Four. Idiots will muse "Oh, they were just pitiful, corporate, bubblegum pop", but in 1963, "Twist and Shout" was hard rock, and songs could be catchy without being manufactured and soulless.
EDIT:
Didn't notice your post, but you've explained it better than I.
In conclusion, there are two things I know for certain.
1. This won't result in another British band who can "really rawk" taking their place.
2. The music scene ITTL will be almost completely unrecognizable within a few years.
Last edited:
Considering how long it took to get their stuff on iTunes because of an inane copyright dispute, there have probably been hundreds of millions of downloads in just the last 10-15 years that nobody paid for, and therefore weren't properly "sold."
Cliff Richard had his start before the Beatles as did Dylan.
Just as its possible to debate wether Brian Epstein Epstein created the Beatles or (more likely) the Beatles created Bruan Epstein, its debatable how much the Beatles created the 60s or the 60s created the Beatles. People were looking for something and the post-WWII cultural zeitgeist had experimented for quite some time.The poetry of the Beats and Yevtushenko, abstract expressionist art, bebop jazz were aspects of this. These movements weren't able to attract or be the center of a mass movement.The Beatles for a time were. If it wasn't for Dylan and the Beatles something else would have come along to center some sort of youth revolt.
I'm not super knowledgeable about music history. As I understand that while mainstream rock n roll was in a sorry state by the early 60s, there was a lot of local creativity going on though out the US. There were the Phil Spector groups like the Shirelles. There were the Jaynettes who sung the haunting "Sally Go Round The Roses".There was early 60s garage rock.
http://www.amazon.com/How-Beatles-Destroyed-Rock-Roll/dp/0195341546
My guess is something like the San Francisco Sound would have developed anyway, perhaps a few years later out of the mixture of folk, soul,surf music, jazz and lysergic acid.
Surf bands would have continued and as others said Brian Wilson would have reached creative heights he didn't in OTL. "Rock" as such might not have existed but the dominant pop sound might have been a folky R n' B sound perhaps somewhat similar to the Beatles Revolver album.Avante garde artists would have put interesting twists on this. Something like the Sonic Youth might have emerged by the late 60s.
Whatever would have happened I think it would have been just as strange, interesting, and creative as in OTL 60s.
Just as its possible to debate wether Brian Epstein Epstein created the Beatles or (more likely) the Beatles created Bruan Epstein, its debatable how much the Beatles created the 60s or the 60s created the Beatles. People were looking for something and the post-WWII cultural zeitgeist had experimented for quite some time.The poetry of the Beats and Yevtushenko, abstract expressionist art, bebop jazz were aspects of this. These movements weren't able to attract or be the center of a mass movement.The Beatles for a time were. If it wasn't for Dylan and the Beatles something else would have come along to center some sort of youth revolt.
I'm not super knowledgeable about music history. As I understand that while mainstream rock n roll was in a sorry state by the early 60s, there was a lot of local creativity going on though out the US. There were the Phil Spector groups like the Shirelles. There were the Jaynettes who sung the haunting "Sally Go Round The Roses".There was early 60s garage rock.
http://www.amazon.com/How-Beatles-Destroyed-Rock-Roll/dp/0195341546
My guess is something like the San Francisco Sound would have developed anyway, perhaps a few years later out of the mixture of folk, soul,surf music, jazz and lysergic acid.
Surf bands would have continued and as others said Brian Wilson would have reached creative heights he didn't in OTL. "Rock" as such might not have existed but the dominant pop sound might have been a folky R n' B sound perhaps somewhat similar to the Beatles Revolver album.Avante garde artists would have put interesting twists on this. Something like the Sonic Youth might have emerged by the late 60s.
Whatever would have happened I think it would have been just as strange, interesting, and creative as in OTL 60s.
John:
John releases several good singles and albums and dies of a drug overdose in 1967 (Being part of the 27 club).
Paul:
Paul releases a few decent singles and drops out of the music business, becoming a doctor (just like what his mother wanted).
George:
George joins one of the various British Invasion bands and retires to a quiet and peaceful life in Bombay in 1983 (dying of cancer in 2002).
Ringo:
Ringo moves to America and becomes successful in Country and Western and retires in 1973 (Becoming a hand on a ranch).
John releases several good singles and albums and dies of a drug overdose in 1967 (Being part of the 27 club).
Paul:
Paul releases a few decent singles and drops out of the music business, becoming a doctor (just like what his mother wanted).
George:
George joins one of the various British Invasion bands and retires to a quiet and peaceful life in Bombay in 1983 (dying of cancer in 2002).
Ringo:
Ringo moves to America and becomes successful in Country and Western and retires in 1973 (Becoming a hand on a ranch).
- Status