WI: Beatles Signed by Decca?

In January of 1962, the Beatles auditioned for Decca Studios in London England. They played a series of covers with 3 independently written songs interspersed. The band at the time consisted of the final group, save the drummer was Pete Best who had not yet been dropped as he would be later. The playlist was:

1. "Like Dreamers Do" (Lennon/McCartney)
2. "Money (That's What I Want)" (Gordy/Bradford)
3. "Till There Was You" (Meredith Wilson)
4. "The Sheik of Araby" (Smith/Wheeler/Snyder)
5. "To Know Her Is to Love Her" (Phil Spector)
6. "Take Good Care of My Baby" (King/Goffin)
7. "Memphis, Tennessee" (Chuck Berry)
8. "Sure to Fall (In Love with You)" (Cantrell/Claunch/Perkins)
9. "Hello Little Girl" (Lennon/McCartney)
10. "Three Cool Cats" (Leiber/Stoller)
11. "Crying, Waiting, Hoping" (Buddy Holly)
12. "Love of the Loved" (Lennon/McCartney)
13. "September in the Rain" (Warren/Dubin)
14. "Bésame Mucho" (Consuelo Velázquez)
15. "Searchin'" (Leiber/Stoller)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoDRZ_vG1-E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdeyBPUiE28
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5R8R1WAZtcU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFT_38ktddE

It sounds like rather average (for the day) beat sound to me; nothing groundbreaking.

Decca subsequently decided not to pick up the Beatles (though they did reportedly print a few singles from the audition before they decided to drop the band) saying guitar music was going out of style and the band wouldn't make it. They were subsequently picked up by Parlophone, Pete Best was dropped for Ringo, their albums were released by Columbia Records in the United States and they went on to become the biggest band in history.

But what if Decca had went ahead and signed the Beatles?
 
It's hard to underestimate the importance of George Martin in the Beatles musical success, so Beatles at Decca means he's out of the picture, and that hurt's them considerably. However, there are some benefits to being at Decca, namely the actual label the Beatles were signed to was a comedy label originally. According to Phillip Norman, the record company thought "Love Me Do" was a comedy record, and didn't really promote it much. You won't have that problem with Decca.

Also, there's little chance Pete gets kicked out ITTL assuming he stays long enough for whatever album 1 with Decca is. It may seem funny now but Pete had a massive fan base among Beatles fans at the time (mostly because of how he looked.) If that fan base extends even more, the backlash will make firing him a very bad idea, even if the others don't really like him much.

Generally without Martin the group is musically weaker. But if they can work their way around that, then Decca is the biggest freaking label in the world, they'll own the Beatles and the Rolling Stones at the same time. I think you could run a small country with that kind of cash.

But again, the most important thing is that George Martin is out of the picture, and that's, needless to say not a good thing for the group.

You won't see a return to the Hamburg Beatles here, Epstein had basically killed that by this point AFAIK, so image wise the group is probably pretty similar, except with Pete Best keeping his job.

Ironically the group was lucky not to pass that audition.
 
Last edited:
By the way Norton, I've been meaning to ask you which of their albums you had a preference for. My mood is subject to change but the most consistent favorites for me have been Rubber Soul The White Album and Abbey Road, though again it's subject to change and while it isn't as good as those I have a soft spot for With the Beatles.

Apologies for the offtopicness.
 
By the way Norton, I've been meaning to ask you which of their albums you had a preference for. My mood is subject to change but the most consistent favorites for me have been Rubber Soul The White Album and Abbey Road, though again it's subject to change and while it isn't as good as those I have a soft spot for With the Beatles.

Apologies for the offtopicness.

Revolver is by far their best album.
 
By the way Norton, I've been meaning to ask you which of their albums you had a preference for. My mood is subject to change but the most consistent favorites for me have been Rubber Soul The White Album and Abbey Road, though again it's subject to change and while it isn't as good as those I have a soft spot for With the Beatles.

Apologies for the offtopicness.
I don't think I can name which I prefer. I know the ones I can leave more than the ones I can take. I don't think Let It Be was the best, and many would agree. And I understand it was more or less just abandoned and meant to be loose which explains why it isn't like all crisp and nicely cut and all, but that's not necessarily my bone to pick. I think Spector's production may have helped on certain tracks, but on others, it's just ham fisted. He basically molested "The Long And Winding Road" with a cheesy orchestra for God's sake. I also think that a lot of the songs are not distinct enough from others. I mean, I confuse things like "Two of Us" with "The Long and Winding Road" and "Don't Let Me Down" with "Dig A Pony" and stuff like that all the time, cause I think they sound too close and deal with too close of subject matter. That has nothing to do with the cut or production but it rests on the Beatles themselves. Maybe they could have combined those together were they on better terms by that point, but what can you do I suppose.
I do prefer the "Get Back" final acetate bootleg version of it. While it isn't glorious, I think it's better if you give it time to grow on you.

I basically like everything. The early albums have that beat skiffle, though I don't like the covers they did (I hate covers; if one person did it and recorded it, what's the point of you singing it for your own album?), the middle years is a nice ever climbing slope towards the psychedelia of Sgt. Pepper's, and then a nice transition toward a "getting back" to a more earthy rock in their latter years.
 

hammo1j

Donor
Glass Onion is right - George Martin deserves the title the 5th Beatle slightly ahead of Brian Epstein and it would be for the worse without him.

Sometimes I think that the Beatles story almost seems to be like a novel with so many obstacles and insults placed in their way to their success.

The only record label who would sign them was Parlophone, a producer of novelty and comedy recordings, but, in that unlikely setting, they found one of the greatest record producers...
 
Decca subsequently decided not to pick up the Beatles (though they did reportedly print a few singles from the audition before they decided to drop the band) ...

I don't think this is true. Decca didn't sign them, so they didn't have rights to issue the songs. I believe any singles with those songs on them are bootlegs.

That said, without EMI, the Beatles issue one album and then sink back into obscurity.

The U.S. (and EMI's affiliate Capitol) didn't pick up on the band until early 1964, so any success would have to start with their early stuff, and without George Martin, there would be nothing of note in their early music.

Their first big British hit, "Please Please Me," was initially written as a Roy Orbison knockoff, running at half the tempo we're familiar with. George Martin suggested they speed it up. Bingo, a big hit, and we're off and running.

Without Martin, they have no big breakthrough hit, Cliff Richard and the Shadows still rule, and no British artists make it big in the U.S. in the early 60s ... not even the Stones, who chased fame after they saw the Beatles do it.

What of rock and roll itself? Who knows ...
 

Xen

Banned
It's hard to underestimate the importance of George Martin in the Beatles musical success, so Beatles at Decca means he's out of the picture, and that hurt's them considerably. However, there are some benefits to being at Decca, namely the actual label the Beatles were signed to was a comedy label originally. According to Phillip Norman, the record company thought "Love Me Do" was a comedy record, and didn't really promote it much. You won't have that problem with Decca.

Also, there's little chance Pete gets kicked out ITTL assuming he stays long enough for whatever album 1 with Decca is. It may seem funny now but Pete had a massive fan base among Beatles fans at the time (mostly because of how he looked.) If that fan base extends even more, the backlash will make firing him a very bad idea, even if the others don't really like him much.

Generally without Martin the group is musically weaker. But if they can work their way around that, then Decca is the biggest freaking label in the world, they'll own the Beatles and the Rolling Stones at the same time. I think you could run a small country with that kind of cash.

But again, the most important thing is that George Martin is out of the picture, and that's, needless to say not a good thing for the group.

You won't see a return to the Hamburg Beatles here, Epstein had basically killed that by this point AFAIK, so image wise the group is probably pretty similar, except with Pete Best keeping his job.

Ironically the group was lucky not to pass that audition.

I disagree with Best keeping his job, he was too much of an outsider with the other three. However if he did keep his job, the Beatles will likely throw him out by the mid-1960's, around the time of the Bigger than Jesus crisis. He may even quit the group, in fact without George Martin and without Ringo, the Beatles could be over by 1966/1967. Perhaps Lennon and McCartney remain together as a Simon and Garfunkle type of duet? Some interesting butterflies are flapping their wings here.
 
Top