Something else.

[Bryan91]

I think the garage rock scene in America could be a big factor here.. if you're looking for rocking beat groups that may influence other bands (like the British invasion acts did), then the likes of the Kingsmen are the answer. Would a bunch of scruffy American garage bands inspire Bob Dylan etc to go electric? Maybe....

A knock on effect is that hard rock/heavy metal may spawn from garage rock instead of British blues.. so the heavy sounds of the late 60s/early 70s may be more Sex Pistols than Black Sabbath or Led Zep.

I mentioned that Led zeppelin would still had existed in a world without The beatles. I also mention before that the British blues-rock scene was developing indepedently of The beatles. Without The beatles, The british blues scene still would had been there although first wave british blues rock bands wouldn't had been successful during 1964-1966 and I mentioned that a band like Cream could probably score a top ten hit in america in the late 1960s if The beatles never existed.

The biggest lost for British pop/rock without The beatles would had been Merseybeat which most likely would had never take off in america and in our real history, merseybeat wasn't as important to the rock sound as blues/blues rock was. Blues would had continued on and I still think that a band like Zeppelin can get big in America. Yes no Black sabbath but there would be others heavy blues rock bands that would paved the way for hard rock/heavy metal.

 

[Mark E.]

The beatles had a huge dominance in 1964 that brought them and a bunch of British groups into the States.

Very much right place, right time, but many UK artists were moving rock and roll past the US doldrums of 1960-63. When the Kinks hit with "You Really Got Me" in August, 1964, that single composition was regarded as a song that re-defined the very arrangement of classic rock music, from the sixties forward. In 1951, recording was still poorly developed; popular music was still sold on low-fidelity 78-RPM records. Soon, tape recording made it possible to place songs recorded at different times on the same disk, allowing the 33-RPM LP to become practical. Improvements accelerated. In older music, there were separate singers, musicians, composers and song-writers. Then, Chuck Berry and Buddy Holly showed the world that one person can do all four. The Beatles followed and were very prolific. Elvis was a bit of an exception in that his fame was his voice. His guitar contribution was minimal and he did not compose or write lyrics. But he could act.

 

[Hulkster'01]

I think the beatles are overrated to be honest because people think that the whole universe of music would had stop if they didn't exist but they are ignoring Elvis, Bob dylan, Chuck berry, The beach boys, The four seasons, Roy orbison and others. Elvis has a better singing voice than all of The beatles (my opinion). Dylan was a better songwriter than all of the beatles (in my opinion). The beach boys had better harmonies than the beatles (my opinion)

Amen!

 

[Bryan91]

Very much right place, right time, but many UK artists were moving rock and roll past the US doldrums of 1960-63. When the Kinks hit with "You Really Got Me" in August, 1964, that single composition was regarded as a song that re-defined the very arrangement of classic rock music, from the sixties forward. In 1951, recording was still poorly developed; popular music was still sold on low-fidelity 78-RPM records. Soon, tape recording made it possible to place songs recorded at different times on the same disk, allowing the 33-RPM LP to become practical. Improvements accelerated. In older music, there were separate singers, musicians, composers and song-writers. Then, Chuck Berry and Buddy Holly showed the world that one person can do all four. The Beatles followed and were very prolific. Elvis was a bit of an exception in that his fame was his voice. His guitar contribution was minimal and he did not compose or write lyrics. But he could act.

Look, I said it many times, The beatles are overrated. They overshadowed a lot of artists/singers out there. I even mention that Dylan was a better songwriter than The beatles, Presley was a better singer (in my opinion) than the beatles and that The beach boys had better harmonies than The beatles. However, like Elvis, The beatles were very influential and there is no replacement for them just like there is no replacement for Elvis. I understand that you don't like hearing that but it's the truth. If the beatles didn't change anything how come British groups didn't do it before them? Why? There is only one beatles and their impact is solely only to them, same with Presley in the 50s.

 

[Mark E.]

It has been said by many that the Beatles' timing and prolific productivity were more significant than their musical contributions. In 1962, the first British song to top the Billboard Hot 100 chart was "Telstar" by the Tornadoes. There was, in fact, some reach to the British environment before 1964. That was also the year when home stereos were hitting the market, creating an environment for wider fidelity in the audio spectrum. By late 1968, the cutting edge of popular music left the top 40 and became album dominated. In 1961, the LP featured songs that were already top 40 hits, with a few extras. In 1969, album tracks were shortened to 3 minutes to create a top 40 song. Many less sophisticated songs, dominated by a teen-age market, filled the 40, creating the "bubble gum" years.

Going back to 1964, without the Beatles, some marketers may have tried to market British songs from the Kinks, Dave Clark 5, and others. They might start with an album that featured multiple artists, and try to market singles.

 

[Bryan91]

It has been said by many that the Beatles' timing and prolific productivity were more significant than their musical contributions. In 1962, the first British song to top the Billboard Hot 100 chart was "Telstar" by the Tornadoes. There was, in fact, some reach to the British environment before 1964. That was also the year when home stereos were hitting the market, creating an environment for wider fidelity in the audio spectrum. By late 1968, the cutting edge of popular music left the top 40 and became album dominated. In 1961, the LP featured songs that were already top 40 hits, with a few extras. In 1969, album tracks were shortened to 3 minutes to create a top 40 song. Many less sophisticated songs, dominated by a teen-age market, filled the 40, creating the "bubble gum" years.

Going back to 1964, without the Beatles, some marketers may have tried to market British songs from the Kinks, Dave Clark 5, and others. They might start with an album that featured multiple artists, and try to market singles.

I mentioned before that Cream could still get a top ten hit in america without The beatles in the late 1960s. It's also a possibility that a British group can score a top ten hit in the mid-1960s america but just because a British group scores a top ten hit in america in the mid 1960s doesn't mean that they could directly bring the british invasion to america. The beatles did it because their songs became hits after hits and their LP albums became huge on the album chart that a wave of british groups were ready to enter the pop singles chart in america because of the beatles. Without the beatles, the british invasion to america which means a bunch of british artists dominating america doesn't happen for the mid-1960s. British groups would still be around without the beatles for the mid-1960s but it never would had take over the american charts for the mid-1960s. I could see british artists of a handful reaching the top 40 american charts by the 1970s. So artists like Eric clapton, Elton john and others can still have great successes in the 1970s. The difference here is that british pop/rock groups don't become dominant in the american pop charts from 1964-1966.

 

[Exostrike]

Now I'm interested, partly because Yesterday (2019) is somewhat inaccurate and has certain butterfly nets on events that would've otherwise been butterflied by the non-existence of the Beatles.

Sorry to go off topic Yesterday is kind of interesting as a alt history film because until

Spoiler

John Lennon turns up

its more like a wizard did it and surgically removed the beatles but didn't change anything else. Either that or someone deleted some files in the matrix and no one bothered altering the simulation to account for it.

 

[shearsforest]

Sorry to go off topic Yesterday is kind of interesting as a alt history film because until

Spoiler

John Lennon turns up

its more like a wizard did it and surgically removed the beatles but didn't change anything else. Either that or someone deleted some files in the matrix and no one bothered altering the simulation to account for it.

As mentioned by the replies to that original comment, apparently Coca-Cola doesn't exist in ATL 2019. Don't get how the non-existence of the Beatles could singlehandedly bring down the existence of a soda brand that was created in the 19th century.

Same with cigarettes, and even Harry Potter.

 

[cortz#9]

As mentioned by the replies to that original comment, apparently Coca-Cola doesn't exist in ATL 2019. Don't get how the non-existence of the Beatles could singlehandedly bring down the existence of a soda brand that was created in the 19th century.

Same with cigarettes, and even Harry Potter.

Perhaps it's the non-existence of Coca Cola and cigarettes that butterflied the Beatles?

 

[Mad Bad Rabbit]

Perhaps it's the non-existence of Coca Cola and cigarettes that butterflied the Beatles?

Without Coca Cola and cigarettes the Allies lacked fighting spirit, giving Nazi scientists additional time to develop the anti-music missile.

 

[cortz#9]

Without Coca Cola and cigarettes the Allies lacked fighting spirit, giving Nazi scientists additional time to develop the anti-music missile.

Lol!
On a more serious note, the Germans did bomb Liverpool during the Battle of Britain, in an alt timeline this could've butterflied the Beatles in fact a more destructive (not a victorious) Battle of Britain could butterfly a lot Britain's rockers of the 1960's.

 

[Mark E.]

To imagine a parallel to a "sixties without the Beatles," look at the British influx of the seventies. Punk rock began to emerge around 1975, when Disco was the American fad. Punk rock had a reputation for violent theatrics that Americans resisted. Record stores began labeling punk themes as "new wave" to designate the musical style minus the violent reputation. Finally, in 1979, disco crashed and artists began to move towards the punk rock style gradually. Finally, The Clash charted in 1982 with "Rock the Casbah." So, without the Beatles, music still evolves its recorded complexity in the late sixties.

The early eighties are the years the traditional Top 40 fragments to the point it loses popularity. That's when enough cars have FM radios that the old AM stations leave the music formats. Sixties rock evolves as recording studios and homes embrace the new high fidelity stereo. We can't dismiss the impact of technology on the rapid evolution of music in the late fifties and sixties.

 

[mattep74]

Which was my main complaint with the film and took me out of it - especially as it became a running joke throughout the film (no Coke, no tobacco, no Harry Potter)...

Just when do people think Coca-Cola was invented? US troops in both world wars drank it. Tobacco was known since Columbus times. Just hearing this make me decide to avoid it