WI: The Beatles avoid Psychedelic

This is a topic which was previously brought up in a thread I did a long while ago on had the Beatles not gone psychedelic. In the OTL the Beatles were a basic Rock group and did go Folk Rock for a number of songs and notably on the album Rubber Soul. Folk and Folk Rock was rather popular in the era. Their move to psychedelic began with Revolver. Rubber Soul was the marijuana album, and Revolver was the LSD album. The psychedelic Beatles would exist on Sgt Pepper's and Yellow Submarine and singles of that 67/68 era, but they'd move away from it with their self named album in 1968, getting back to basics for the remainder of their existence as a band.

To get a sense of the context, there were singers and groups who rejected or sidestepped the psychedelic, and most of those artists that went psychedelic did it for only a while before going 'back to basics' subsequently. Bob Dylan completely ignored it and went to Country Rock upon coming out of retirement. And Country Rock is notable as one of the genres where people went in lieu of psychedelic or subsequent to it in trying to get back to basics. Taking that into consideration, the idea that the Beatles may not go full psychedelic is not out of bounds. It should also be noted, Lennon himself always preferred basic Rock and Roll and while he partook of and innovated in the psychedelic, he seems to have regretted "Strawberry Fields Forever" being psychedelic as it was. Personally, I prefer Folk Rock and Rubber Soul is my favorite Beatles album.

What if the Beatles had avoided going psychedelic, or at least full blown psychedelic*, and remained Folk Rock and Rock instead during that period, and subsequently continued evolving along the lines of the Rock they'd 'get back' to in the OTL starting with The White Album.

*I could see something like Revolver being closer to Rubber Soul, and their psychedelic excursion being only as psychedelic as Revolver.
 
The Kinks managed to avoid it, so I'd say its possible for The Beatles to do it too.

I quite like that version of And Your Bird Can Sing, it is as you say, very Byrds-like.

Ringo Starr said he thought that Revolver and Rubber Soul were like different sides to the same album so its certainly possible.

Perhaps Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band would've ended up more Kinks-like rather than 'psychedelic' per se

I can see them emerging more like George Harrison's vision of 'The Band'.
 
There's another direction that The Beatles could've gone.. hard rock.

There's an opening in mid/late 1966, when proto-hard rock bands like The Who & Rolling Stones took a detour into psychedelic music.

If The Beatles reject psychedelia as soon as they discover it, they might come out with an album of straight-out rock songs.

Perhaps they become pioneers of hard rock in this timeline as much as the Small Faces in OTL. Not many bands in the charts were playing like this in 1967: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3bxim3Mfdg
 

Germaniac

Donor
The Who never really experimented at all with psychedelic rock. It really depends on when the Beatles change. If they never try it there are vast butterflies in rock, but if its after rubber soul comes out Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys (at this time competing with the Beatles for popularity) is still going to create Pet Sounds, a foundation album for that era.

I don't see Wilson adapting his style in response to more folk rock sound or hard rock sound. Also going har rock is going to be a challenge for the Beatles with their popular support, which was just months earlier fanning over very pop albums. Wilson may not feel as pressured and have a more concentrated approach to the SMiLE project, pushing along the psychedelic genre anyway
 
One of the things that was mentioned last I read (I don't feel like reading again, so I'll freeball this from memory) was the mention of the Beatles going the Hard Rock direction. I don't know about that. They Beatles did take excursions there on multiple occasions, but in all iterations of the Beatles, there is an underlying bedrock soul and I don't know if that could allow for something like them as dedicated mostly to Hard Rock. Though they can certainly stick with good ol' Rock (with some bells and whistles) as they started to get back to after "Sgt. Pepper's". What good ol' Rock would sound like in 1967 compared to the OTL 1968, 1969, etc, when it was more matured and a reaction to the psychedelia and a moving away from it, I don't know. What an evolution in that alternate 1968/1969/etc Rock would be from Folk Rock, or whatever Rock may sound like left more free from psychedelia, I don't know.

There is a major issue here: in Beatles academia, there is always the debate of if the Beatles lead the times or if they just took part in them or if they were the cheerleaders of things going on whose influence spread the things they had taken part in. I lean towards the latter, which is what McCartney says. Given that, you have to wonder how psychedelic music would fare if the Beatles didn't overtly partake. It may not do as well or well at all, and thus evolve differently. Or the Beatles may feel out of the times, and that could hurt them.

Frankly, by the way, one of the places the Beatles could do quite well and where would seem logical for them would be Country Rock. They did like Country music in their day, and there was once a time when Country was merged into Rock n' Roll. Elvis, Waylon Jennings, Johnny Cash, etc. It took for the Byrds for it to be a thing, but Rock music (in part) could evolve that way regardless since its a nice, logical merging of previously merged elements. If you listen to George Harrison's guitar style in the late, late 60s or maybe 1970 onward, that style he adopted was a slide guitar straight out of Country music. And you can hear some Country or Country influenced songs from the Beatles especially after the breakup (especially from Ringo who did an album of them).

I'll link to this:
http://www.alancackett.com/thebeatlesbeatlecountry.cfm

Country does play well with Folk music, and Country Rock would be a natural component of an evolved Folk Rock. One the problems with it is that Country music is the antithesis of the Rock scene in the 60s. Rock was going long hair and rebellious and Hippie, and Country was conservative and support the war; as an establishment, at least. You certainly had people constantly at odds with that, like Johnny Cash and Frank Zappa. So you could have a cry of foul if the Beatles do it as their main thing. At least if they do it before or around the time the Byrds did it. The Byrds caught some flack for that. And on a separate but related topic, when the Beatles released "Revolution", the militant Left cried foul and called them every name for counterrevolutionary and establishmentarian in the book. That in contrast to "Street Fighting Man", which said or was interpreted as saying go right ahead and use violence 'cause "the time is right for violent revolution". So that's where the concept that there could be the same reaction to them going Country Rock comes from. But I don't want to over sell it as a derailer. The guys that went Country Rock did fine. And Bob Dylan went Country Rock. Not even just Country Rock; full out Country music as well. Dylan went that direction is rebuke of the psychedelic scene.
 
Last edited:
Wow.. lots to pick over in that post!

The idea of the Beatles going country (or at least country-rock) is intriguing - I'm not quite sure they could put something like "Sweetheart of the Rodeo" out before the Byrds, but it is an interesting idea that they could feature country more heavily in their sound.

Sure there would be those in England who'd say "how can you be a country band, you're not American!", but it wouldn't be the first time the Beatles took an american sound & made it their own - look at all the soul & Motown numbers they started their career with.

Besides, in the midst of a British blues explosion what's so wrong about a band drawing from American music on the other side of the racial divide?

Another consideration here is a sound something like Creedence Clearwater Revival - perhaps The Beatles go "swamp rock" may be the compromise between George wanting to go folk, John wanting to go hard rock and Paul wanting to write pop songs?

Oh, one final thing.. a favourite album of John Lennon in 1967 was Captain Beefheart's debut.. although it has psychedelic tinges, this could be a template for the sort of swampy rock John would want? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrcV018K7WY
 
Last edited:
They could have gone 'Heavy Rock' in the late 60's, butterflies pending. Perhaps not as heavy as Led Zepp or Deep Purple, but Heavier than The Kinks or the Stones.

I agree Country could also be an option. Perhaps not fully Country; certain albums following may hold an amalgamation of styles rather than rooted in just one.
 
They could have gone 'Heavy Rock' in the late 60's, butterflies pending. Perhaps not as heavy as Led Zepp or Deep Purple, but Heavier than The Kinks or the Stones.

When you listen to the music John wrote in 1968, you can see the 'rocker' side of him really come out after the psychedelic interlude of 1967, which was more his thing.

I found this quote, which speaks volumes:

"I keep saying that I always preferred the double album, because my music is better on the double album; I don’t care about the whole concept of Pepper, it might be better, but the music was better for me on the double album, because I’m being myself on it. I think it’s as simple as the new album, like “I’m So Tired” is just the guitar. I felt more at ease with that than the production. I don’t like production so much. But Pepper was a peak all right."
- John Lennon, Jann Wenner interview Rolling Stone issue 75: February 4, 1971

Putting aside the fact that interview was at a pretty heated time, it indicates to me that if John kept a firm hand on the Beatles musical direction (nixing some of Paul's ideas), we could have a far more ROCK Beatles in 1967, with far less production trickery.

Whether that means they'd be any less psychedelic is anyone's guess - it could be good old stomping rock'n'roll ala Creedence Clearwater Revival, or John could steer them into acid rock. (See 'Happiness is a warm gun' for a snapshot of THAT alternative Beatles)
 
John happily partook in psychedelia like anyone else, regardless of later feelings or what was truer to him or whatever else you may want to put it down to. He innovated in it. He had a firm hand on things, and what we got was "Tomorrow Never Knows", and he didn't have a totally loose group in 1967 either. I don't think the narrative can be that Paul pushed it and John was adrift and swept up in it, hence what if John Lennon had stood firm all along and we got a real core rocker album? I think the narrative would be that OTL John Lennon was romanticized by psychedelia and interested in it as much as anyone else, so what if he hadn't gotten into it (as much, at least) and remained true to his rocker soul (or whatever you wanna put it down as being)?

Regardless of what I said, who Lennon is and the quote makes it very easy to twist fate so Lennon doesn't go the direction of fancy production experimentation. All any alternate history scenario requires is for the possibilities to be in your character's nature.
 
John happily partook in psychedelia like anyone else, regardless of later feelings or what was truer to him or whatever else you may want to put it down to. He innovated in it. He had a firm hand on things, and what we got was "Tomorrow Never Knows", and he didn't have a totally loose group in 1967 either. I don't think the narrative can be that Paul pushed it and John was adrift and swept up in it, hence what if John Lennon had stood firm all along and we got a real core rocker album? I think the narrative would be that OTL John Lennon was romanticized by psychedelia and interested in it as much as anyone else, so what if he hadn't gotten into it (as much, at least) and remained true to his rocker soul (or whatever you wanna put it down as being)?

Regardless of what I said, who Lennon is and the quote makes it very easy to twist fate so Lennon doesn't go the direction of fancy production experimentation. All any alternate history scenario requires is for the possibilities to be in your character's nature.

It's easy for an artist to get caught-up in the trends of the day, then a few years later dismiss them (as John did). But his solo career shows as much of a rock'n'roller as a psychedelic dreamer - so given a clear path in that direction in 1967, I'd say it would tempt him.

One other thing to throw in the mix here. In Feb/March 1967, you have the start of Bob Dylan & The Band's "Basement Tapes" sessions in upstate New York.

What if news of those sessions got out to one of the Beatles, who hears a tune or two played down the phone from Big Pink, causing a re-think right in the middle of Sgt Pepper sessions?
 
I've had a thought of how to put things into a workable thought process: If we take roughly 1966 to 1968 as the gap in the Beatles normal Rock, we can remove that, note the state of things in roughly 1966 and the state of things in roughly 1968 or 1969, and gradually move from 1966 into what was the OTL 1968/1969 in a naturally evolving way. That's not a perfect way of thought, since alternate history breeds different outcomes as an assurance, but it is a start.

I've also had the thought that to figure out how a more production deficient version of the Beatles in 1967 may sound, one should look to the earlier demos from 1966 of the Beatles material that would appear subsequently in "Sgt Pepper's". The Beatles didn't just start off right at psychedelic; they had to move towards it. So it seems logical to mean that demos would give a clue as to how things could have sounded.
 
I've been listening to the Door's lately, and what struck me when comparing it to the Beatles is that it is still psychedelic, but it is psychedelic in a different way. The psychedelia of the Beatles was in very overt production, production experimentation, orchestral accompaniment, and surrealistic lyrics. The psychedelic era of the Beatles were different mixes of those per song. The psychedelia of the Door's was based mostly in lyrics and poeticism in them, along with perhaps some production tweaks. Overall, the Door's were relatively straightforward as a sound besides that. The sound was unique just for what it was, with Ray Manzarek's subconsciously unnerving electronic keyboard, Jim Morrison's crooner-in-a-Rock-motif vocals, the dereliction of bass, and this kind of "Lord of the Flies", man as a murderous, sexual, writhing animal thing you get from their music. And I can certainly hear an evolution from earlier 60s California Rock and Surf Rock in the Door's sound. You can argue that the uniqueness that came from all that makes them psychedelic, but it really was just their sound.

I think the Beatles around Revolver are much more like the Door's form of psychedelia than at any point past. Given that the Door's maintained that sound, I am of the belief that the Beatles could have kept with the sort of sound they got on Revolver throughout the psychedelic era. (I said that already, but it's more informed now than when I said it before). They could then hop on the "back to roots" wagon that was running through Rock music in the late 60s and into the 70s, or they could evolve along those lines.
 
I've been listening to the Door's lately, and what struck me when comparing it to the Beatles is that it is still psychedelic, but it is psychedelic in a different way. The psychedelia of the Beatles was in very overt production, production experimentation, orchestral accompaniment, and surrealistic lyrics. The psychedelic era of the Beatles were different mixes of those per song. The psychedelia of the Door's was based mostly in lyrics and poeticism in them, along with perhaps some production tweaks. Overall, the Door's were relatively straightforward as a sound besides that. The sound was unique just for what it was, with Ray Manzarek's subconsciously unnerving electronic keyboard, Jim Morrison's crooner-in-a-Rock-motif vocals, the dereliction of bass, and this kind of "Lord of the Flies", man as a murderous, sexual, writhing animal thing you get from their music. And I can certainly hear an evolution from earlier 60s California Rock and Surf Rock in the Door's sound. You can argue that the uniqueness that came from all that makes them psychedelic, but it really was just their sound.

I think the Beatles around Revolver are much more like the Door's form of psychedelia than at any point past. Given that the Door's maintained that sound, I am of the belief that the Beatles could have kept with the sort of sound they got on Revolver throughout the psychedelic era. (I said that already, but it's more informed now than when I said it before). They could then hop on the "back to roots" wagon that was running through Rock music in the late 60s and into the 70s, or they could evolve along those lines.

There are a number of bands that were psychedelic without relying on production tricks.

The Velvet Underground instantly springs to mind.. and in 1966-7 they specialised in the same dark side of psychedelia that The Doors explored, the main differences being the lack of a sex-symbol frontman & markedly worse production on their albums.. the 13th Floor Elevators are another example of this sort of approach too.

I read somewhere that one of John Lennon's favourite albums in 1967 was Captain Beefheart's "Safe as milk", which is a pretty basically produced psychedelic blues & R'n'B record. i suspect if John had more of an influence on their direction then that would be his style of choice in 1967.
 
Then again, there's always the OPPOSITE to the original WI.

What if The Beatles go even further into psychedelia than Sgt Pepper?

What would the reaction be to a Beatles album based around psychedelic grooves akin to 'Tomorrow Never Knows' from Revolver?
 
If there's no Sgt. Peppers then I can see a similarly album tied in the theme of childhood memories (Strawberry Fields Forever style lyrically).

But what would be the POD to make The Beatles move away from Psychedelia? Maybe Revolver has less of an impact?
 
Top