WI: The Beatles never went Psychedelic?

[Emperor Norton I]

Going through the Beatles box set, I notice a very distinct cleavage of the Beatles right on top of Sgt. Pepper's. There was everything that came before, and what came after. And I don't mean to make the mop top era sound static, as they did evolve greatly, but it is easily categorized as the mop top era; it had a certain sound, and was very much Beat music, with occasional psycedelic songs here and there leading up to Pepper.

So what if the Beatles didn't go psychedelic?

 

[THE OBSERVER]

Perhaps they jump right to Abbey Road/Let It Be Sound.

 

[Han]

IMO you need a POD in '63 or '64. The Beatles really began moving away from their typical "loveable moptop phase" with Help! and Rubber Soul. I mean, you had strings, Sitar, and different sound effects such as the fuzz box. If they just stick with A Hard Days Night style songs, then Brian Epstein will probably be a whole lot happier and comfortable with the band's direction. I don't think that they could stop touring if they never went psychedelic: I predict that fans would get tired of the same old routine if they never experimented but stayed in the studio the entire time. But perhaps there wouldn't be a need to stop touring: part of the reason why the Beatles stopped touring was because they liked the studio better, and if you take away the creativity of the studio, then what reason is there to not tour? That being said, there's also the issue of excessive fandom, which also pushed the Beatles away from live concerts. How would John Lennon react? If he still meets Yoko, he'll still fall in love with her, yada yada yada, which would cause problems among the non-psychedelic group because she'll be pushing him in an experimental direction while the Beatles are remaining "static." If Lennon still is anti-war, his anti-war activism could actually have more clout if he isn't seen as a "dirty hippie." Also other musicians were into experimentation and psychedelic music: I think the Beatles would eventually become obscure if they didn't go psychedelic. Then again, conservative parents would be MUCH more happier with the Beatles than they were after the psychedelic age.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

The issue with that is that even though they moved away from their early mop top phase, they were certainly still mop tops, and while their sound matured it was still classifiable in that (I'm not sure what to call it) "straight shooting phase". I think they could still continue to mature and side step the Psychedelic, maybe going into a folk direction.

Perhaps they jump right to Abbey Road/Let It Be Sound.

Perhaps where it concerned Abbey Road to a degree. Let it Be, though, was an attempt to get back to earlier roots, but was just yucky.

 

[Han]

The issue with that is that even though they moved away from their early mop top phase, they were certainly still mop tops, and while their sound matured it was still classifiable in that (I'm not sure what to call it) "straight shooting phase". I think they could still continue to mature and side step the Psychedelic, maybe going into a folk direction.

I guess it really depends on what you want to happen as a result of the Beatles not going psychedelic. I interpreted the POD as the Beatles continuing to make albums in the vein of A Hard Days Night and With The Beatles (which are fantastic albums BTW ). It would be cool if the Beatles continued going in a folk direction. There are certainly folk influences in '64 and '65; specifically with John and his "Dylan Period" and "Fat Elvis Period," so we can have an idea of what that would look like if they continued in the same direction. I think however, that Revolver is psychedelic. I mean, you have "Tomorrow Never Knows" on the album. Also, does this mean that the Beatles will stay away from LSD?

Let it Be, though, was an attempt to get back to earlier roots, but was just yucky.

Let It Be might have been yucky in terms of the hell that the Beatles went through to make it, but IMO it's one of the best albums they made. Then again every Beatles album is the best they made.

 

[seancdaug]

I don't think it's a given that if the Beatles avoid "going psychedelic" that they would stay with their original "mop top" sound. Musically, the band was almost certain to start branching into new areas and modifying their sound.

Actually, I think the idea of the Beatles moving in the direction of folk music is pretty likely: they were on the record as big fans of Bob Dylan and the Byrds, and the arguably were headed in that direction with Rubber Soul. I would argue that Revolver served as something of a transition between their abortive "folk" stage (with songs like "For No One" and "Eleanor Rigby") and their future psychedelic direction ("She Said She Said" and "Tomorrow Never Knows"). I can see them eventually moving in a direction that sounds a bit like the Eagles, perhaps with a little less "country" and a little more "folk".

 

[The Kiat]

I liked the Beatles before they got heavy into drugs. Their earlier music actually made some sense. Afterwards... Walrus? Yellow Submarine? You tell me what you think's going on.

As to What If? They might not have broken up in 1970/1 (I disremember what year), but I couldn't guess if they'd survive the advent of Disco Technology. Who knows, maybe they'd switch over to that.

 

[Thande]

Norton, are you familiar with the Harry and Paul Beatles sketches, which are basically a (comedic) piece of AH based on this very idea?

 

[Emperor Norton I]

I guess it really depends on what you want to happen as a result of the Beatles not going psychedelic. I interpreted the POD as the Beatles continuing to make albums in the vein of A Hard Days Night and With The Beatles (which are fantastic albums BTW ). It would be cool if the Beatles continued going in a folk direction. There are certainly folk influences in '64 and '65; specifically with John and his "Dylan Period" and "Fat Elvis Period," so we can have an idea of what that would look like if they continued in the same direction. I think however, that Revolver is psychedelic. I mean, you have "Tomorrow Never Knows" on the album. Also, does this mean that the Beatles will stay away from LSD?

If it were stuck at "A Hard Days Night", it'd limit it to much.

Revolver is semi-psychedelic. Most of the songs stick to the beat rock, though certainly "Tomorrow Never Knows" shows what's to come; Hell, it may have even out-shinned what it was forecasting.

LSD doesn't necessarily ensure psychedelic, but I won't certainly help in dissuading it if they didn't take it.

Let It Be might have been yucky in terms of the hell that the Beatles went through to make it, but IMO it's one of the best albums they made. Then again every Beatles album is the best they made.

I view Let It Be as the evil twin of Abbey Road, because it frankly is. They worked on the album "Get Back", the sessions fell to Hell, and they stopped them. Then they quit all that, and started on Abbey Road, taking songs they had come up with in the Get Back sessions to put on the album, and making some new ones I think. "Get Back" was later released as "Let It Be" after being cobbled together from maybe hundreds of hours of takes, and then overlayed with orchestras.

I liked the Beatles before they got heavy into drugs. Their earlier music actually made some sense. Afterwards... Walrus? Yellow Submarine? You tell me what you think's going on.

That was more to do with Lennon's poetry than drugs. Look up "A Spaniard in the Works". Lennon wrote that weird kinda stuff because he was a master of that disassociated verse or whatever it's called.

As to What If? They might not have broken up in 1970/1 (I disremember what year), but I couldn't guess if they'd survive the advent of Disco Technology. Who knows, maybe they'd switch over to that.

1970.
It depends on what they ended up being.They could go into Disco. Lennon liked it, and Paul did some. Not necessarily something all their music would be, but they'd probably partake in it.

Norton, are you familiar with the Harry and Paul Beatles sketches, which are basically a (comedic) piece of AH based on this very idea?

Si Senor. It's enjoyable because it's them encapsulated in time as the early mop top, but horrific because they're stunted and you just kinda want them to break out but they don't. I don enjoy those overall, though. I wished they produce more.

Inform your monarchs to commission a series based on those.

 

[Glass Onion]

Well, at least for a few more years John Lennon will have a bit more control over the group's direction than he did historically. Which may mean the Beatles last a bit longer, since McCartney was considerably more patient than Lennon, and less likely to leave the group under any circumstance. If Lennon still feels the group is his group, he probably won't leave. That may mean that the group will remain a unit for slightly longer than they did historically, although they may be less relevant and popular in this timeline.

 

[DSS]

Norton, are you familiar with the Harry and Paul Beatles sketches, which are basically a (comedic) piece of AH based on this very idea?

... Thank you Thande, that is the best thing I have ever seen on Youtube.

 

[rjrrzube]

I think the POD could be the filming of "Help!" ...

The Indian undertones of some of the music was fascinating to George Harrison particularly. With his help, a lot of "Eastern" music and culture came to the West ... and psychedelia (though not strictly tied to Eastern influence) followed.

So instead of "Help!", the Beatles make another movie that was proposed: "A Talent For Loving", a Western, which in its own way helps usher the Beatles into a country-folkie sound (foreshadowing Dylan's "John Wesley Harding").

Psychedelia still rolls along, but without the Beatles. They end up sounding quite a bit more like Dylan in the mid-60s, before going more rock, commencing with the White Album in 68.

 

[Swan Station]

Okay, so without a psychedelic Beatles, how does this effect the psychedelic rock movement in general? Does it still go more mainstream? Do we still get Cream, Procul Harem, Pink Floyd, Doors, etc.? Are they as well-known? Will anyone be able to put out something like Lucy in the Sky and Strawberry Fields?

 

[Emperor Norton I]

I was thinking today, the Beatles could also have gone the direction of long jams. That was in vogue for a while in the 60s, and evolved into the long jams of Prog Rock later. They certainly partook on many occasions: "Helter Skelter" and "I Want You" both ended up as 20 minute jams which they had to cut, or certain takes of them were anyway. The problem being that wouldn't be in the realm of Pop Music.

 

[flippikat]

I was thinking today, the Beatles could also have gone the direction of long jams. That was in vogue for a while in the 60s, and evolved into the long jams of Prog Rock later. They certainly partook on many occasions: "Helter Skelter" and "I Want You" both ended up as 20 minute jams which they had to cut, or certain takes of them were anyway. The problem being that wouldn't be in the realm of Pop Music.

Most recordings I've heard of The Beatles in the studio improvising are either quite dull (eg Rubber Soul Outtake '12-Bar Original'), or just too bizarre & shambolic to release (eg Long version of 'It's all too much' or the jamming in the Get Back rehearsals - sometimes with Yoko taking the vocals - see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_pUxXhArq8 ).

Mind you, this one stands out. A long outtake of 'She's a Woman'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oj9EJLgkkVo

Still not releasable but it has an unhinged appeal to it.

 

[Romantic Nihilist]

Maybe they can avoid the overt experimentation of 'What's The New Mary Jane?' and 'Carnival of Light'?

 

[Stéphane Dumas]

Didn't the Beach Boys song "Good vibrations" influenced the direction the Beatles taked with the album Sgt. Pepper? What if the Beach Boys didn't make Good vibrations?

 

[Romantic Nihilist]

Didn't the Beach Boys song "Good vibrations" influenced the direction the Beatles taked with the album Sgt. Pepper? What if the Beach Boys didn't make Good vibrations?

Then we'd have a dystopia

 

[flippikat]

Didn't the Beach Boys song "Good vibrations" influenced the direction the Beatles taked with the album Sgt. Pepper? What if the Beach Boys didn't make Good vibrations?

That and Pet Sounds. I think Paul said in an interview that Pepper was their answer to Pet Sounds.

With no Pet Sounds & Good Vibrations, we have a different sound to The Beatles in 1967.

I think it'd be more rock than Pepper - in the Revolver sessions they recorded some great rock songs, and that side to their range came back on the White Album.. But in 1967 there was more focus on whimsy, studio trickery and mid-tempo toe-tappers.

Maybe the question should be "If there's no Pet Sounds, what music from 1966 would influence the Sgt Pepper sessions instead?".

 

[Emperor Norton I]

I think a good idea for how to conceive of the non-psychedelic Beatles situation would be to tear back to the bare bones of the material (as so far as can be done), and then guess how it could have gone forward in a different way.

As such, I present this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elgn0aULqpY

I think the electric guitar demo of Strawberry Fields Forever gives an impression of a way the song could have turned out, with psychedelia in lyrics but not production. Although the guitar would need to be tweaked, as it seems to overpower the material. Had it been pursued in a non-psychedelic way, it could have turned out very much like "Rain" I think.