WI: No Beatles?

On that note, I find it interesting how pre-military and post-military Elvis are almost different artists. Pre-military Elvis was the Face of Rock and Roll, helping to bridge the genre's roots in African-American rhythm and blues with White America. Post-military Elvis was closer to a pop musician, in part because rock music had moved on without him.

The Beatles' key innovation was in moving rock music from "Rock and Roll" to "Rock", turning what was a budding genre into the form of pop music that dominated musical discourse for decades (arguably ending its run at the top only in the 1990s or even 2000s). The Fab Four helped pioneer the studio album as the currency of music releases (even as they released singles that would inevitably reach #1), helped integrate other genres like Indian music or avant-garde electronica into the mix (even as they still stuck to the guitars/bass/drums core), and created the singer-songwriter as the Platonic ideal of musical expression over the "standards song book" approach (rendering Tin Pan Alley and its ilk increasingly obsolete).
 

hammo1j

Donor
One possibility is that without the Beatles acid never becomes mainstream.

Syd Barrett doesn't crack and as Waters matures he becomes a competitor like L&M's relationship.

With two gifted writers what would Pink Floyd become?
 
Yeah he sold a lot of records, they don't call him the King for nothing but he didn't do anything revolutionary in the studio
One of the first artist to use three track recorders, so it could have a Stereo mix and voice on its own track, and that could have some basic overdub. Beatles used twin track recorders at first, doing mono releases,switching over years after Elvis.

Elvis had Bill Porter, who recorded his stereo hits after leaving the Army.
 
One of the first artist to use three track recorders, so it could have a Stereo mix and voice on its own track, and that could have some basic overdub. Beatles used twin track recorders at first, doing mono releases,switching over years after Elvis.

Elvis had Bill Porter, who recorded his stereo hits after leaving the Army.
That's just one thing though, the Beatles and George Martin have a lot of firsts under their belt and they wrote their own songs.
I know I'm biased but the Beatles and bands like the Doors, the Jimi Hendrix Experience the Velvet Underground did a hell of a lot more experimenting in the studio and experimented with different genres of music.
Elvis was a one trick pony.
 
Elvis was a one trick pony.

Elvis was a singer. Perhaps the best singer of his generation.

But he wasn't a song writer or in any way a record producer.

But what Elvis really wanted to be was a movie star, and he had the acting chops for that.

The problem for Elvis was his management, Colonel Tom Parker. Elvis was an old fashioned, religious, boy who loved his mother and respected authority- much more than I do. But that's who he was and he respected the authority of Colonel Parker who saw that Elvis making shallow, pop movies was a way to keep him a movie star and make lots of money.

Over time Elvis grew tired of this. He wanted to be a serious actor. He wanted to take the role that showed that Tony Curtis could be a serious actor: The Defiant Ones. (Except for The Sweet Smell of Success, Curtis never took advantage of this and returned to romantic comedies.)

But Colonel Parker vetoed that. This was before he went in the army by the way.

Elvis still did a more serious film after the army in Flaming Star. (I saw that as a child and wept profusely at its ending.) But he let the Colonel turn his acting career into shallow pop musicals and his musical career into LPs to go with the films.

He finally broke out of that in the late 60s with his comeback. But he was still only a singer. He wasn't only covering others' hits- he had songs written for him that were hits. Elvis was enormous in his comeback. But he wasn't a revolutionary then, even though he was the innovater of the more glam look- before Glam and before Neil Diamond and others did it.

Elvis' story is much more a tragedy than the story of the Beatles- even with John's horrid murder.
 
Last edited:

hammo1j

Donor
Interesting but I think Paul could've made it on his own.
In alt-timeline, I could imagine John and Paul with their own successful bands, neither as big as the Beatles but successful.

Elvis Costello described Paul as 'a proper virtuoso', so agreed, if anyone can make it...

In response to other posters:

Technically there are thousands of musicians better than JPG&R, but the goal of music is to sound good together and make the listener enjoy.

I wont say they were unsurpassed at this, as the Beatles dont wholly comprise my list of favourite songs.

But for a group that was before my time, only recording for 7 years, nobody has more on the list.
 
Went to see the film last night.

This old lady had to take some Ibuprofen before so I could sit in the uncomfortable seats without my back and legs getting so painful I can't stand it. I'd given up on movies- but we had a ticket already and the person it was originally for, my oldest adult son, couldn't go, so I went with my middle and youngest adult sons.

Luckily we had seats with lots of aisle in front and empty seats next to me and I could push up the arm rest, so with the pills I got through with no pain.

I loved the movie. It made me laugh and get weepy. I recomend it.

It actually is an alt reality and there's more changes than just no Beatles. What the POD is wasn't defined. But several of the other changes would indicate it's much earlier than the Beatles period of formation.

I won't comment on the other changes to not spoil the film.
 
Last edited:
I love Robert Carlyle and I was totally shocked to find out the actor playing older John was him when I got home and googled it. I just didn't recognize him.

There's a strong theme in this film that fame and fortune are bad and if John hadn't have had them he'd have lived a long and happy life.

What do you think of that?

I thought Rocky was right, there was a third choice for Jack. He could have asked Ellie to marry him right there and join him in L.A. as soon as possible. I thought he would at the airport, why did he go to all the trouble to get there and not do it?

Only for a plot point to keep the third choice from happening. That part of the movie I didn't like.

Please continue to respect those who don't want spoilers by putting any quotes from me you respond to in spoiler brackets too. thanks.
 
Last edited:
Went to see the film last night.

This old lady had to take some Ibuprofen before so I could sit in the uncomfortable seats without my back and legs getting so painful I can't stand it. I'd given up on movies- but we had a ticket already and the person it was originally for, my oldest adult son, couldn't go, so I went with my middle and youngest adult sons.

Luckily we had seats with lots of aisle in front and empty seats next to me and I could push up the arm rest, so with the pills I got through with no pain.

I loved the movie. It made me laugh and get weepy. I reccomend it.

It actually is an alt reality and there's more changes than just no Beatles. What the POD is wasn't defined. But several of the other changes would indicate its much earlier than the Beatles period of formation.

I won't comment on the other changes to not spoil the film.
I haven't seen it yet but now that I have your review I will definitely go see it once I get the chance. :)
 
I don't know. Sometimes there's something tangible about an intangible.

As a decade, the Sixties started late. The death of JFK is probably a good point for when the Fifties ended but without the Beatles to usher in the new decade, to provide the mood music, it would've been a little different. Yeah, everything else was in place - Vietnam, the Pill, the rise of the Baby Boomers - but i don't think any of the groups mentioned would've had the influence of the Fab Four.

[Ok. Probably nonsense but those of my feelings, gosh darn it.]
 
There's still going to be some interesting pop coming from the UK, but it's less likely to sweep the US in dramatic fashion. I see British pop entering the US through tastemakers on the East and West Coasts. The British artists will be part of whatever scene is coming out of those places, rather than a "British Invasion".
 
So, this is essentially the same premise as the soon-to-be released British film, Somebody Else- or rather, the ATL where the film's protagonist gets spontaneously ISOTed away to an alternate timeline in which Gerry and the Pacemakers either never formed, or dissolved before they got their first music contract. Of course, in the film, this is the only difference between the two TLs, with the film's protagonist being the only one who remembers that Gerry and the Pacemakers ever existed in his original TL, but with everything and everyone else in the world being fundamentally unchanged as a result of this. Would this be the case though? How big an impact did Gerry and the Pacemakers actually have on OTL- and in your opinion, what perceptible, tangible differences would you expect to see by the present day, in a world without Gerry and the Pacemakers?

Could some other act have stepped into their big shoes? Would there be a mania for another band instead of the Pacemakermania we all know about? Would there still have been a British Invasion without the Fantastic Four leading the way?
 
Top