Without The Beatles, is there a chance that The Dave Clark 5 could had started The British Invasion?

[Bryan91]

A few observations.
Note I am Not a Beatles fan. I am to you to have seen them and I own one alblum and a few individual songs.
That being said
You dont get an invasion with out the Beetles . You get at best a Raid, because no other group could sustain itself like the Beatles did. And you need that to creat the backbone of the Invasion.
Yes you may see the DC5 in the US (not sure if they are Butterfliex or not). But the DC5 don’t have the appeal of the Bettels. The Beachboys don’t have that appeal. Heck short of Elvis it is hard to find that appeal.
Song writing is the ABSOLUTE most import thing. I can find find millions of good singers or interment players and I can find great personalities but you need the song. A good song will carry a bad singer. But a great singer can’t carry a bad song. And the. Beatles have some of the best songs ever. Heck some of those songs actually sound better as instrumentals.
Yes there are over the top Beatles fans but we seam to have an over the top DC5 fan here as well.
No matter how you look at it the DC5 is not the Beatles. As much as it pains me to say the Beatles were overall the best to exist. And PM was perhaps one of the 4 or so best song writers to ever live. You. Don’t just snap your fingers and replace them. It was not a fluke that they did what they did.
Will you see British groups in the US? Of course including the DC5 (most likely pending butterflies). But with out Beatlemania you don’t have people making such a big deal over the British groups. The same way that you has Sci Fi and Sci Fi movies before Star Wars but because of Star Wars every movie company on the planet wanted a space Sci Fi. Heck even James Bond went to space.
So I am sure the without the Fab 4 more then a few British groups don’t get the attention, the TV coverage or the record deals they got in the OTL.
Note I am not saying you don’t see a fair number of British groups , the scene in Britain was very hot at the time with loads of talent but it is just not the culture phenomenon it was OTL.
I just went and listened to a bunch of DC5 songs and realized i know about 4 or 5 of them. And liked them. But sorry compared to the Beatles the songs are at best fair to average. Many one hit wonders of the time had better songs and some groups like the Beachboys and the Beatles had better songs. Not saying the DC5 singers were bad I would rate them as solid 7-8. But the average BB and Beatles songs were 7-8 with many 9 and a few 10s. And a lot of one hit wonders hit 8-9-10 range. So they are not going to catch fire like the Beatles did, as you up yourself noted even the Beachboys a group general viewed as a major success of the time didn’t come close to the mania of the Beatles.
Now the question is, after posting the topic as a question can you accept the answers?

First of all, I'm not a over the top Dave Clark 5 fan. I like them but they are not my favorites. This isn't about their amazing songwriting or their amazing talent, like I mentioned before, this is about business. The Beatles were obviously talented but their early massive success was more than just talent. I could still see a successful British Invasion in America without The Beatles. Some bands would had been affected like I mentioned earlier. No Monkees and The Rolling Stones songwriting gets delayed so no successful 1965 Rolling Stones. The Beatles were part of their time. There were many British bands having similar influences. One of them would had broken through eventually.

I mentioned earlier that The Dave Clark 5 would had done first wave Beatles but not second wave Beatles. They would had been passe by 1967. Since there were many British groups, you could replace them and try to figure out what their replacement can do which was about to be different. The Beatles were great but popular music would had evolved with or without them. I'm not discrediting them but things had to moved on.

I feel like if they never broke up, they wouldn't had been this critical acclaimed. Their break up in 1970 seal their myth for a long time to come.

 

[Bryan91]

A few observations.
Note I am Not a Beatles fan. I am to you to have seen them and I own one alblum and a few individual songs.
That being said
You dont get an invasion with out the Beetles . You get at best a Raid, because no other group could sustain itself like the Beatles did. And you need that to creat the backbone of the Invasion.
Yes you may see the DC5 in the US (not sure if they are Butterfliex or not). But the DC5 don’t have the appeal of the Bettels. The Beachboys don’t have that appeal. Heck short of Elvis it is hard to find that appeal.
Song writing is the ABSOLUTE most import thing. I can find find millions of good singers or interment players and I can find great personalities but you need the song. A good song will carry a bad singer. But a great singer can’t carry a bad song. And the. Beatles have some of the best songs ever. Heck some of those songs actually sound better as instrumentals.
Yes there are over the top Beatles fans but we seam to have an over the top DC5 fan here as well.
No matter how you look at it the DC5 is not the Beatles. As much as it pains me to say the Beatles were overall the best to exist. And PM was perhaps one of the 4 or so best song writers to ever live. You. Don’t just snap your fingers and replace them. It was not a fluke that they did what they did.
Will you see British groups in the US? Of course including the DC5 (most likely pending butterflies). But with out Beatlemania you don’t have people making such a big deal over the British groups. The same way that you has Sci Fi and Sci Fi movies before Star Wars but because of Star Wars every movie company on the planet wanted a space Sci Fi. Heck even James Bond went to space.
So I am sure the without the Fab 4 more then a few British groups don’t get the attention, the TV coverage or the record deals they got in the OTL.
Note I am not saying you don’t see a fair number of British groups , the scene in Britain was very hot at the time with loads of talent but it is just not the culture phenomenon it was OTL.
I just went and listened to a bunch of DC5 songs and realized i know about 4 or 5 of them. And liked them. But sorry compared to the Beatles the songs are at best fair to average. Many one hit wonders of the time had better songs and some groups like the Beachboys and the Beatles had better songs. Not saying the DC5 singers were bad I would rate them as solid 7-8. But the average BB and Beatles songs were 7-8 with many 9 and a few 10s. And a lot of one hit wonders hit 8-9-10 range. So they are not going to catch fire like the Beatles did, as you up yourself noted even the Beachboys a group general viewed as a major success of the time didn’t come close to the mania of the Beatles.
Now the question is, after posting the topic as a question can you accept the answers?

''Songwriting is the ABSOLUTE most important thing''.

Twist and shout, Anna, Chains, Boys, A Taste of honey, Roll over beethoven, Long Tall Sally, Rock and Roll Music, Mr. Moonlight, and more were all songs that The Beatles covered and put on their albums.

Twist and Shout peaked at #2 in the Hot 100. That was a cover song. They copied The Isley Brothers arrangement note to note. The Beatles wrote the intro from I Feel Fine from Bobby Parker Watch Your Step. The intro of Day Tripper was taken from the opening line from Chuck Berry I'm Talking About You. The bass line for I Saw Her Standing There was copied from I'm Talking About You (Paul confirmed it). Back In The USSR is pretty much Back In The USA from Chuck Berry. Revolution intro was plagarized note to note from Pee Wee Crayton Do Unto Others.

Come Together intro line was copied from Chuck Berry You Can't Catch Me, The here come ole flatop part. George Harrison was sued later on by stealing The Chiffons He's So Fine for My Sweet Lord. He paid up.

The Beatles's songwriting can be considered overrated because they somewhat took from others. Oh and they were a cover band in the early 60s. They performed covers in their early gigs, they made money that way early on.

 

[Bryan91]

My comment wasn't a attack on The Beatles. I'm just telling the truth. After all, how can a Beatles hater know where they got those songs from. I have alot of their albums.

The Beatles Second Album which I owned has about 6 or 7 songs that were covers. Roll Over Beethoven, You Really Got A Hold On Me, Money, Devil In Her Heart, Please Mr, Postman and Long Tall Sally. It peaked at #1 on the album chart. It starts with Roll Over Beerhoven from Chuck Berry. I prefer the original.

 

[Bryan91]

The Beatles songwriting is a little bit overrated.

Hear this Pee Wee Crayton Do Unto Others (1954)

The Beatles Revolution (1968)

Pee Wee Crayton or the songwriter of that song didn't got credited for Revolution.

Bobby Parker Watch Your Step

The Beatles I Feel Fine

Chuck Berry I'm Talking About You

The Beatles Day Tripper

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IbPn5j2YKk

 

[Bryan91]

Chuck Berry I'm Talking About You (1961)

The Beatles Day Tripper (1965)

 

[Bryan91]

Hear The Beatles covering songs

The Isley Brothers Twist and Shout (1962)

The Beatles Twist and Shout (1963 UK, 1964 US Hit)

Arthur Alexander wrote this Anna song (1962)

The Beatles Anna (1963 UK, 1964 US)

The Cookies Chains (1962)

The Beatles Chains (1963 UK, 1964 US)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJOhavaeJYk

The Shirelles Boys (1960)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnIhCCVmLEs

The Beatles Boys (1963 UK, 1964 US)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr8OuW5JJgQ

The Shirelles Baby It's You (1961) I prefer this original version
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKgkDxnG9Z8

The Beatles Baby It's You (1963 UK, 1964 US),
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWUTlM6hz0g

 

[Bryan91]

The Beatles wrote This Boy because of The Miracles I've Been Good To You
The Miracles I've Been Good To You (1963)

The Beatles This Boy (1963 UK, 1964 US)

The Beatles Not A Second Time was pretty much based on a Miracles song. Without The Miracles, no Second Time and no This Boy, they wouldn't had existed.

All I've Got To Do is pretty much based on The Miracles again. John Lennon said that he was trying to write a song like Smokey Robison and The Miracles.

The Beatles were pretty much a white band playing BLACK music.

Without The Miracles or soul music, no This boy, Not a second time, and no All I've Got to Do.

Without The Isley Brothers Twist and Shout, no Beatles Twist and Shout.

Without Chuck Berry, no I Saw Her Standing There, Day Tripper, Back In The USRR and no Come Together.

Without girl group music, no I Want To Hold Your Hand, She Loves You and other of their hits.

Without Bobby Parker Watch Your Step, no I Feel Fine

 

[Bryan91]

Without Little Richard or gospel, Paul Mccartney would had never gotten his whoo for She Loves You and Oh Darling. Also, Til There Was You was a cover song. Here are two songs that were covers by The Beatles performed on The Ed Sullivan Show.
The Beatles Twist and Shout

The Beatles Til There Was You

So these are the gods that some of you think of. Playing black music with the exception of Til there was you but with more success because they were WHITE. Black music was pretty popular in the US pop charts in 1963. The British Invasion was pretty much White British guys playing BLACK music. Without The Beatles, another white band playing BLACK music would had start a British Invasion. My best prediction is that it would had been The Dave Clark 5. Black music was there and white British guys were listening with their two ears.

 

[Bryan91]

Chuck Berry Roll Over Beethoven (I like The Beatles but this original version is way better)

The Beatles Roll Over Beethoven

The Donays Devil In His Heart (1962)

The Beatles Devil In Her Heart (1963 UK, 1964 US)

 

[Bryan91]

The Teenagers Why Do Fools Fall In Love (1956)

This song definitely influenced Tell Me Why

The Beatles Tell Me Why (1964)

 

[Bryan91]

A few observations.
Note I am Not a Beatles fan. I am to you to have seen them and I own one alblum and a few individual songs.
That being said
You dont get an invasion with out the Beetles . You get at best a Raid, because no other group could sustain itself like the Beatles did. And you need that to creat the backbone of the Invasion.
Yes you may see the DC5 in the US (not sure if they are Butterfliex or not). But the DC5 don’t have the appeal of the Bettels. The Beachboys don’t have that appeal. Heck short of Elvis it is hard to find that appeal.
Song writing is the ABSOLUTE most import thing. I can find find millions of good singers or interment players and I can find great personalities but you need the song. A good song will carry a bad singer. But a great singer can’t carry a bad song. And the. Beatles have some of the best songs ever. Heck some of those songs actually sound better as instrumentals.
Yes there are over the top Beatles fans but we seam to have an over the top DC5 fan here as well.
No matter how you look at it the DC5 is not the Beatles. As much as it pains me to say the Beatles were overall the best to exist. And PM was perhaps one of the 4 or so best song writers to ever live. You. Don’t just snap your fingers and replace them. It was not a fluke that they did what they did.
Will you see British groups in the US? Of course including the DC5 (most likely pending butterflies). But with out Beatlemania you don’t have people making such a big deal over the British groups. The same way that you has Sci Fi and Sci Fi movies before Star Wars but because of Star Wars every movie company on the planet wanted a space Sci Fi. Heck even James Bond went to space.
So I am sure the without the Fab 4 more then a few British groups don’t get the attention, the TV coverage or the record deals they got in the OTL.
Note I am not saying you don’t see a fair number of British groups , the scene in Britain was very hot at the time with loads of talent but it is just not the culture phenomenon it was OTL.
I just went and listened to a bunch of DC5 songs and realized i know about 4 or 5 of them. And liked them. But sorry compared to the Beatles the songs are at best fair to average. Many one hit wonders of the time had better songs and some groups like the Beachboys and the Beatles had better songs. Not saying the DC5 singers were bad I would rate them as solid 7-8. But the average BB and Beatles songs were 7-8 with many 9 and a few 10s. And a lot of one hit wonders hit 8-9-10 range. So they are not going to catch fire like the Beatles did, as you up yourself noted even the Beachboys a group general viewed as a major success of the time didn’t come close to the mania of the Beatles.
Now the question is, after posting the topic as a question can you accept the answers?

I'm gonna snap my fingers and replaced them. British Invasion was coming with or without them. The better question is, where would The British Invasion be without black music?

 

[Bryan91]

The fabalous Dave Clark 5 were about to start it in a world without The Beatles. I like The Beatles but popular music evolves, it moves on.

 

[Mad Bad Rabbit]

I'm gonna snap my fingers and replaced them. British Invasion was coming with or without them. The better question is, where would The British Invasion be without black music?

It would be delayed two or three years, now with the Stones, Cream, Eric Burdon etc. whitewashing the music.

 

[Bryan91]

It would be delayed two or three years, now with the Stones, Cream, Eric Burdon etc. whitewashing the music.

True but I still think The Dave Clark 5 would had done well in America 1964 without The Beatles.

The Beatles proved that a massive group can evolved. There were artists before them that did that. Frank Sinatra evolved in the 50s compared to his 40s stuff and Elvis Presley also proved that in the early 60s with songs like It's Now Or Never or Surrender. I don't recall Elvis doing anything like that from 1954-1956.

I like artists who can evolved and not stick with one sound. That is why Chuck Berry couldn't had been more successful. He stick to one great sound and remained that way for the rest of his life.

 

[DougM]

There are a million things that if changed change much of what comes after. This entire website is based on that principle.
But somehow you seem to think that the only change that won’t result in a significant change in music is if the largest group from the 60s goes away. Somehow that HUGE change will not butterfly anything.
Sorry but that is just plan wrong. The Beatles WERE the British Invasion. They started it, Beatle Mania boosted it into the stratosphere. And the Beatles sustained it. At the core it was the Beatles and a bunch of other groups that comparatively speaking came and went,
As I have repeatedly said you will see a LOT of British music groups in the US, But without the crazy response the the Beatles it won’t be as intense or as massive. The Beatles were the right group at the right place at the right time. And in order to get the “British Invasion “ you need that over the top fandom that they generated. And I don’t know of another group that will hit that level. Big yes huge a few but not Beatle Mania level.
As I said this is the same principle that we see with Star Wars. Without it you still get Sci Fi but not the same way. Even Lenard Nemoy said in an interview that once he saw Star Wars he knew that a Star Trek movie was inevitable. Why because businessmen jump on the bandwagon to try and get the money. Same reason we see 6 fast food joints on a corner and nothing else for miles. Without Star Wars the craze is not obvious and various knock offs don’t get financed, Without the Beatles at least somecofcthos British groups don’t get deals. And some of them don’t get the attention of the media. At least some media interview and showed other British groups simply because they Beatles were hugely popular and th could get them for interviews or TV appearances or concerts so folks grabbed the closest thing they could find.. Some other British group.
As for the Beatles doing covers.l. First off that was much much more common in the 50s and 60s then it is now. So it was considered normal. My example group the Beachboys did covers (a few). It is difficult to have a concert if you only have written three songs, you need other songs to fill in between. Until you have time to write more songs.
As for influence, yes they were influenced by other groups and songs and such. As far as I know that is pretty common for music groups so nothing there except another attempt to pretend the Beatles were not as huge as they were.

So yes you get a lot of British groups but it is not the ridiculous over the top craze that was the “BRITISH INVASION “

But either way I think this topic has ran its course. It is now a “did too” “did not” argument. The OP asked a question and almost everyone says no you need the Beatles and he insists they are replaceable. Either side can. Prove their case. So it is all speculation. And personal opinion.
The OP very obviously has his (and is entitled has theirs to it) but the other side has theirs. At this point it is clear neither side is going to budge. So may be time to twilight this topic and let it rest.

 

[cortz#9]

There are a million things that if changed change much of what comes after. This entire website is based on that principle.
But somehow you seem to think that the only change that won’t result in a significant change in music is if the largest group from the 60s goes away. Somehow that HUGE change will not butterfly anything.
Sorry but that is just plan wrong. The Beatles WERE the British Invasion. They started it, Beatle Mania boosted it into the stratosphere. And the Beatles sustained it. At the core it was the Beatles and a bunch of other groups that comparatively speaking came and went,
As I have repeatedly said you will see a LOT of British music groups in the US, But without the crazy response the the Beatles it won’t be as intense or as massive. The Beatles were the right group at the right place at the right time. And in order to get the “British Invasion “ you need that over the top fandom that they generated. And I don’t know of another group that will hit that level. Big yes huge a few but not Beatle Mania level.
As I said this is the same principle that we see with Star Wars. Without it you still get Sci Fi but not the same way. Even Lenard Nemoy said in an interview that once he saw Star Wars he knew that a Star Trek movie was inevitable. Why because businessmen jump on the bandwagon to try and get the money. Same reason we see 6 fast food joints on a corner and nothing else for miles. Without Star Wars the craze is not obvious and various knock offs don’t get financed, Without the Beatles at least somecofcthos British groups don’t get deals. And some of them don’t get the attention of the media. At least some media interview and showed other British groups simply because they Beatles were hugely popular and th could get them for interviews or TV appearances or concerts so folks grabbed the closest thing they could find.. Some other British group.
As for the Beatles doing covers.l. First off that was much much more common in the 50s and 60s then it is now. So it was considered normal. My example group the Beachboys did covers (a few). It is difficult to have a concert if you only have written three songs, you need other songs to fill in between. Until you have time to write more songs.
As for influence, yes they were influenced by other groups and songs and such. As far as I know that is pretty common for music groups so nothing there except another attempt to pretend the Beatles were not as huge as they were.

So yes you get a lot of British groups but it is not the ridiculous over the top craze that was the “BRITISH INVASION “

But either way I think this topic has ran its course. It is now a “did too” “did not” argument. The OP asked a question and almost everyone says no you need the Beatles and he insists they are replaceable. Either side can. Prove their case. So it is all speculation. And personal opinion.
The OP very obviously has his (and is entitled has theirs to it) but the other side has theirs. At this point it is clear neither side is going to budge. So may be time to twilight this topic and let it rest.

I agree with you, before there can be a British invasion there has to be one very big successful band in Britain and the the Beatles were that band.
British record companies didn't start signing guitar driven rock band until after the Beatles had three hit songs in the British top 40.

If the Beatles don't have those hit records from late 62 to mid 63, the Dave Clark Five, the Rolling Stones and bands like Gerry and the Pacemakers don't get a recording contract in 1963, maybe one of them gets a deal in 64 late 63 at the earliest but it probably won't be the D.C.5.
I personally don't think a British rock band doesn't get a break till around mid 64 and that band would probably be the Kinks or Herman's Hermits or maybe the Who but that wouldn't happen until late 64 or 65.

It's about timing, talent and maybe most important of all a little luck.

 

[Bryan91]

I agree with you, before there can be a British invasion there has to be one very big successful band in Britain and the the Beatles were that band.
British record companies didn't start signing guitar driven rock band until after the Beatles had three hit songs in the British top 40.

If the Beatles don't have those hit records from late 62 to mid 63, the Dave Clark Five, the Rolling Stones and bands like Gerry and the Pacemakers don't get a recording contract in 1963, maybe one of them gets a deal in 64 late 63 at the earliest but it probably won't be the D.C.5.
I personally don't think a British rock band doesn't get a break till around mid 64 and that band would probably be the Kinks or Herman's Hermits or maybe the Who but that wouldn't happen until late 64 or 65.

It's about timing, talent and maybe most important of all a little luck.

So what you are saying is that a British Invasion could had been delayed a little bit without The Beatles? Seems possible. We all have our own opinions and I respect that. What we do know is that there were a lot of British groups in the early 60s so if you take out The Beatles, one of those groups from the UK still has a chance of becoming successful in America. Probably not Beatles big but have some success regardless. I mentioned before that The Dave Clark 5 would had done first wave Beatles (not as big but still be successful), but not second wave Beatles. So they would had been passe by 1967. Their biggest years would had been 1964 and 1965. I also mentioned that The Monkees wouldn't had existed because there wouldn't be a need to copy a band that never changes.

I also mentioned that The Rolling Stones songwriting ability gets delayed until 1967 or so. That is my best prediction but British guys were coming to America anyways. Two non-American artists topped the Hot 100 in 1963 and without The Beatles, a British group can topped the singles chart or be on top ten in the Hot 100 during the mid 60s.

 

[Bryan91]

There are a million things that if changed change much of what comes after. This entire website is based on that principle.
But somehow you seem to think that the only change that won’t result in a significant change in music is if the largest group from the 60s goes away. Somehow that HUGE change will not butterfly anything.
Sorry but that is just plan wrong. The Beatles WERE the British Invasion. They started it, Beatle Mania boosted it into the stratosphere. And the Beatles sustained it. At the core it was the Beatles and a bunch of other groups that comparatively speaking came and went,
As I have repeatedly said you will see a LOT of British music groups in the US, But without the crazy response the the Beatles it won’t be as intense or as massive. The Beatles were the right group at the right place at the right time. And in order to get the “British Invasion “ you need that over the top fandom that they generated. And I don’t know of another group that will hit that level. Big yes huge a few but not Beatle Mania level.
As I said this is the same principle that we see with Star Wars. Without it you still get Sci Fi but not the same way. Even Lenard Nemoy said in an interview that once he saw Star Wars he knew that a Star Trek movie was inevitable. Why because businessmen jump on the bandwagon to try and get the money. Same reason we see 6 fast food joints on a corner and nothing else for miles. Without Star Wars the craze is not obvious and various knock offs don’t get financed, Without the Beatles at least somecofcthos British groups don’t get deals. And some of them don’t get the attention of the media. At least some media interview and showed other British groups simply because they Beatles were hugely popular and th could get them for interviews or TV appearances or concerts so folks grabbed the closest thing they could find.. Some other British group.
As for the Beatles doing covers.l. First off that was much much more common in the 50s and 60s then it is now. So it was considered normal. My example group the Beachboys did covers (a few). It is difficult to have a concert if you only have written three songs, you need other songs to fill in between. Until you have time to write more songs.
As for influence, yes they were influenced by other groups and songs and such. As far as I know that is pretty common for music groups so nothing there except another attempt to pretend the Beatles were not as huge as they were.

So yes you get a lot of British groups but it is not the ridiculous over the top craze that was the “BRITISH INVASION “

But either way I think this topic has ran its course. It is now a “did too” “did not” argument. The OP asked a question and almost everyone says no you need the Beatles and he insists they are replaceable. Either side can. Prove their case. So it is all speculation. And personal opinion.
The OP very obviously has his (and is entitled has theirs to it) but the other side has theirs. At this point it is clear neither side is going to budge. So may be time to twilight this topic and let it rest.

You know, I respect your comment and all but we have to agree that The Beatles were from their times. There were other British groups with similar influences. Also they were all WHITE which made it somewhat easy for them to conquer America. The Beatles wouldn't had done their mania if they came around in the 70s, 80s or even 90s. They were a product of their time. They were covering recent black songs. They were writing new songs that resembled some of those current black songs. They were writing new songs that were influenced by black songs that came about a couple of years before but not too long ago at that time. If you think about it, the question is easier than what you think. All you have to do is look at the mid 60s. There was still Ed Sullivan Show and there was more discrimination in those times against people that were non-white. The Beatles and the rest of The British Invasion were all whites so that would had made it easier for them to achieve massive success. Look at The Rolling Stones. The Rolling Stones played pretty much Black American music and the white audiences preferred them over the black originators. In the mid 60s, without The Beatles, I am pretty sure that a white audience is going to support more people that look like them rather than Black Americans. I'm not turning this into a racism topic, I'm just telling the truth. The reason why the first wave Beatles is replaceable for me is because just look at their early songs. They were pretty much pop songs that were inspired by black girl groups and they were also covers from black artists. That doesn't seemed hard to do in the mid 60s. I'm not disqualifying their talent, I am just pretty much saying that they were doing things that already existed and that other White British guys were also doing. The first wave Beatles always seemed overrated to me. Twist and Shout is great but come on, they copied The Isley Brothers version arrangement note to note. By December of 1963, America still didn't experience a white British group who can performed songs with their voices and that idea would had eventually come true in a world without The Beatles. Sorry but you can't change my mind. After all, who could had dominate? Folk music? Folk concerts wouldn't have electric instruments so I'm pretty sure that young teenagers girls wouldn't had want that. R&B? Sorry they were blacks and at that time, discrimination was still being pushed heavily against them. Girl group? This seems possible but young girls want guys performers so that they could daydream of them.

 

[Bryan91]

There are a million things that if changed change much of what comes after. This entire website is based on that principle.
But somehow you seem to think that the only change that won’t result in a significant change in music is if the largest group from the 60s goes away. Somehow that HUGE change will not butterfly anything.
Sorry but that is just plan wrong. The Beatles WERE the British Invasion. They started it, Beatle Mania boosted it into the stratosphere. And the Beatles sustained it. At the core it was the Beatles and a bunch of other groups that comparatively speaking came and went,
As I have repeatedly said you will see a LOT of British music groups in the US, But without the crazy response the the Beatles it won’t be as intense or as massive. The Beatles were the right group at the right place at the right time. And in order to get the “British Invasion “ you need that over the top fandom that they generated. And I don’t know of another group that will hit that level. Big yes huge a few but not Beatle Mania level.
As I said this is the same principle that we see with Star Wars. Without it you still get Sci Fi but not the same way. Even Lenard Nemoy said in an interview that once he saw Star Wars he knew that a Star Trek movie was inevitable. Why because businessmen jump on the bandwagon to try and get the money. Same reason we see 6 fast food joints on a corner and nothing else for miles. Without Star Wars the craze is not obvious and various knock offs don’t get financed, Without the Beatles at least somecofcthos British groups don’t get deals. And some of them don’t get the attention of the media. At least some media interview and showed other British groups simply because they Beatles were hugely popular and th could get them for interviews or TV appearances or concerts so folks grabbed the closest thing they could find.. Some other British group.
As for the Beatles doing covers.l. First off that was much much more common in the 50s and 60s then it is now. So it was considered normal. My example group the Beachboys did covers (a few). It is difficult to have a concert if you only have written three songs, you need other songs to fill in between. Until you have time to write more songs.
As for influence, yes they were influenced by other groups and songs and such. As far as I know that is pretty common for music groups so nothing there except another attempt to pretend the Beatles were not as huge as they were.

So yes you get a lot of British groups but it is not the ridiculous over the top craze that was the “BRITISH INVASION “

But either way I think this topic has ran its course. It is now a “did too” “did not” argument. The OP asked a question and almost everyone says no you need the Beatles and he insists they are replaceable. Either side can. Prove their case. So it is all speculation. And personal opinion.
The OP very obviously has his (and is entitled has theirs to it) but the other side has theirs. At this point it is clear neither side is going to budge. So may be time to twilight this topic and let it rest.

''
But somehow you seem to think that the only change that won’t result in a significant change in music is if the largest group from the 60s goes away. Somehow that HUGE change will not butterfly anything.''

I previously said that without The Beatles, The Monkees which were huge in 1967 wouldn't had existed. I also mentioned that The Rolling Stones songwriting would had been delayed until 1967 or so.

Peter and Gordon A World Without Love wouldn't had exist either since Lennon and Mccartney wrote that song for them.

The Dave Clark 5 and maybe Manfred Mann are two groups that could be unchanged without The Beatles. They were formed before The Beatles got big. The Beatles were around but I don't think those two bands were heavily influenced by The Beatles. Manfred Mann Do Wah Diddy Diddy which peaked at #1 in the Hot 100 in 1964 would still had existed because that song was a cover from a black group called The Exciters who released that song before. That song had nothing to do with The Beatles and still was about to come into existence without The Beatles.

Some things would had changed like The Monkees and The Rolling Stones but others, not so much. Like I said before, The Dave Clark 5 and Manfred Mann would had been unchanged so maybe the bands that were not influenced by The Beatles, that gets ignored today would had been more noticeable and respected today without The Beatles.

 

[jamesownz]

British invasion doesn't happen until Oasis starts...as they were pretty much the Beatles but with talent