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

[DougM]

Yes but we know these other groups won’t have the success of the Beatles because the didn’t. Making the. Beatles go away is not changing this. When the Beatles played a local (we as close as they got) venue the police had to be called in n large numbers to control the fans. Not just the day of the concert but when the tickets went on sale. According to the venue manager in an interview he did a number of years latter when ther venue was being torn s down. The NEVER had anything even close to the Beatles and they played pretty much a who’s who of 60s and 70s music.
The Beatles mani was on a whole different level. And no other group that we had in the OTL is going yo get even close to that with pr without the Beatles. At least not the big named groups such as. DC5. We can show that because these groups didn’t get as many over the top fans as the Beatles. And back then the must see group was whichever group was in town. So just because the Beatles were in town in June didn’t have much effect on the audience for say the. DC5 in August. (Some yes, but not that much). There was enough fans/teenagers with enough cash to make another group into a supper group if the interest was there, but it didn’t happen which shows you it wouldn’t hsppen

To go back to my Sci Fi theory. Alien was a good movie and with or withoutStar Wars it was going to do well. But not Star Wars well. and removing Star Wars won’t change that

 

[Bryan91]

Yes but we know these other groups won’t have the success of the Beatles because the didn’t. Making the. Beatles go away is not changing this. When the Beatles played a local (we as close as they got) venue the police had to be called in n large numbers to control the fans. Not just the day of the concert but when the tickets went on sale. According to the venue manager in an interview he did a number of years latter when ther venue was being torn s down. The NEVER had anything even close to the Beatles and they played pretty much a who’s who of 60s and 70s music.
The Beatles mani was on a whole different level. And no other group that we had in the OTL is going yo get even close to that with pr without the Beatles. At least not the big named groups such as. DC5. We can show that because these groups didn’t get as many over the top fans as the Beatles. And back then the must see group was whichever group was in town. So just because the Beatles were in town in June didn’t have much effect on the audience for say the. DC5 in August. (Some yes, but not that much). There was enough fans/teenagers with enough cash to make another group into a supper group if the interest was there, but it didn’t happen which shows you it wouldn’t hsppen

To go back to my Sci Fi theory. Alien was a good movie and with or withoutStar Wars it was going to do well. But not Star Wars well. and removing Star Wars won’t change that

I don't know where you are going here but all I'm saying is that without The Beatles, British groups like The Dave Clark 5 and Manfred Mann would still had been successful in America. They weren't heavily dependent on The Beatles. Some things would had change but The Dave Clark 5 Glad All Over going into top ten Hot 100 still would had happened without The Beatles. A lesser British Invasion is my best answer but there still would had been British groups gaining success in America without The Beatles. Do you honestly think that white British artists copying and imitating black artists wouldn't have had a chance without The Beatles? Let's grow up and accept facts, there were many British groups in the early 60s and one of them were about to come to America regardless with no Beatles. It was possible and it was about to happen. Now if they were playing skiffle then forget about it but they were all playing R&B which is black music.

 

[Mad Bad Rabbit]

[ ob nitpick: does depend on the POD of why there are no Beatles -- for example if it's because they were killed in Hamburg when the Cuban Missile Crisis went hot, well, transatlantic travel is severely curtailed after that, even if the Ed Sullivan Show were still broadcasting ... ]

 

[Eric C Johnson]

While I admire the expertise on display here, unless I grossly missed it, we are missing a bet here.

Movies. Would "Catch Us If You Can/Wild Weekend" still be made in 1965 without "Help" in 1964? I think so. Elvis had done a dozen or so, and Ricky Nelson even made it into a John Wayne film. Dave Clark was a stuntman prior to forming his group (and it was his) although he probably inflated the number of films he was in. Nevertheless, my memory of the DC5 film was it had much better plot, script, acting, directing, locations and was a much tighter than "Help", which was pretty much Beatles being Beatles. Same with the encores, "Hard Days Night" etc. I think this was because Dave Clark was more interested in film-making than any of the Fab Four. I also believe that the Beatles films sucked the oxygen out of rock-group movies for a while.

Which brings up the next question, which isn't whether the DC5 would be passe by 1967, but why. By then Dave Clark was already into television production, an he eventually bought the "Ready, Steady, Go" library and made a bundle off of it. Producing is where the money is. Other group members were also dabbling out of music - Rick Huxley and Denis Payton into real estate, etc. The DC5 broke up about 1970 but were on life support long before then, because their interests were evolving. If the oxygen were still there, would the DC5 make additional films, or move into television. MTV or VH1 a decade earlier? All group members or one or two?

Secondly, I still am convinced my first post stands up the the subsequent commentary. The Animals, Kinks, Stones, even Lulu and Pet Clark, etc were still coming to America regardless of whether the Beatles did or didn't. I think the talents of those musicians have not been given their due. The timeline of their arrival was entirely separate from Beatles influence and would not have been delayed. Keith Richards would still have woken up in a Clearwater hotel and recorded his riff for "Satisfaction" in 1965, not 1967.

I also have a question. Why are the Beatles not here? Were they never born? Died early? Not have schoolyard chemistry? Or just get jobs as studio musicians? Perhaps just make a living as songwriters like hundreds of others who never recorded what flowed from there minds? What if McCartney and Lennon were the Jim Steinmans of Great Britain? What if their original music were sold to the highest bidder and still out there during the OTL but under a dozen groups?

Of course I don't know the answers. I am certainly no expert, just a tone-deaf dude with 90% of my musical talent between the clefts of my buttocks. But I thinks there's a huge chunk of this thread that hasn't been covered.

 

[Bryan91]

While I admire the expertise on display here, unless I grossly missed it, we are missing a bet here.

Movies. Would "Catch Us If You Can/Wild Weekend" still be made in 1965 without "Help" in 1964? I think so. Elvis had done a dozen or so, and Ricky Nelson even made it into a John Wayne film. Dave Clark was a stuntman prior to forming his group (and it was his) although he probably inflated the number of films he was in. Nevertheless, my memory of the DC5 film was it had much better plot, script, acting, directing, locations and was a much tighter than "Help", which was pretty much Beatles being Beatles. Same with the encores, "Hard Days Night" etc. I think this was because Dave Clark was more interested in film-making than any of the Fab Four. I also believe that the Beatles films sucked the oxygen out of rock-group movies for a while.

Which brings up the next question, which isn't whether the DC5 would be passe by 1967, but why. By then Dave Clark was already into television production, an he eventually bought the "Ready, Steady, Go" library and made a bundle off of it. Producing is where the money is. Other group members were also dabbling out of music - Rick Huxley and Denis Payton into real estate, etc. The DC5 broke up about 1970 but were on life support long before then, because their interests were evolving. If the oxygen were still there, would the DC5 make additional films, or move into television. MTV or VH1 a decade earlier? All group members or one or two?

Secondly, I still am convinced my first post stands up the the subsequent commentary. The Animals, Kinks, Stones, even Lulu and Pet Clark, etc were still coming to America regardless of whether the Beatles did or didn't. I think the talents of those musicians have not been given their due. The timeline of their arrival was entirely separate from Beatles influence and would not have been delayed. Keith Richards would still have woken up in a Clearwater hotel and recorded his riff for "Satisfaction" in 1965, not 1967.

I also have a question. Why are the Beatles not here? Were they never born? Died early? Not have schoolyard chemistry? Or just get jobs as studio musicians? Perhaps just make a living as songwriters like hundreds of others who never recorded what flowed from there minds? What if McCartney and Lennon were the Jim Steinmans of Great Britain? What if their original music were sold to the highest bidder and still out there during the OTL but under a dozen groups?

Of course I don't know the answers. I am certainly no expert, just a tone-deaf dude with 90% of my musical talent between the clefts of my buttocks. But I thinks there's a huge chunk of this thread that hasn't been covered.

Let's just say that The Beatles members were never born. Even if The Beatles members were never born, British Invasion was coming to America. White British guys were heavily influenced by 50s rock and roll/r&b/blues so those were the genres that pretty much paved the way for the british invasion. Yes The Beatles were the first ones but if the members were never born or never took interest in music careers, The British Invasion still would had happened because it came from things that are broader than just The Beatles being on The Ed Sullivan Show. It came from the fact that many White British teens loved rock and roll/r&b/blues in the 50s/early 60s and started forming bands because of those genres. If those genres were never popular in the UK then no British Invasion. People could say that The British Invasion happened because of The Beatles (they were the first ones to come to America) but is much broader than that. It happened because of 50s rock and roll/early 60s R&B/blues. That pretty much paved the way for The British Invasion. Without The Beatles, 50s rock and roll, early 60s r&b and the blues would still had been around so those genres would had still keep influencing other White British groups. This is something that some people here don't quite understand.

 

[DougM]

Have you ever looked into the Beatles and Beatle Mania? It was insane. It existed it was not some propaganda that some crazed fan put out after the fact. Even today original Beatle records and stuff sell for a kings ransom. I can’t explain why this is or was and I don’t really care. But pretending it is propagand or did happen so you can pretend that some average 1960s group from England would have been able to achieve the same thing is utterly ridiculous.
If you WANT and insist on this result then by all means go ahead and write it up. But don’t ask a question about an outcome of a POD when you are 100% insistent on the outcome. This topic isn’t about asking for the opinion of folks on a POD it is about trying to get folks to agree with the opinion you had from the start.
As I said I am NOT a Beatles fan but trying to pretend DC5 could have been as successful if the cosmic lottery hadn’t unfairly decided to give the Beatles all the fame and success and a large string of original songs and a fan bas that probably made Elvis envious is like trying yo make Germany able To invade England.
And the result of them not existing turns a D-Day cross channel invasion into A sea lion.
Yes the British groups will show up just like they did in the late 70s and Eighties. But without the insane popularity of the Beatles they will not get the over the top reception that the “”BRITISH INVASION “ got in the real timeline, The truth is that ALL the. British groups were over hyped and got way way way to much attention in the press and from record labels. The same way that a LOT of Sci Fi movies were over hyped after Star Wars and fantasy and kids movies were after Harry Potter. Without the runaway success/popularity of the Beatles (or some group equally popular) leading the charge the news won’t be desperate for “the Next Beatles” and the recoding companies won’t be signing every person in England that opens there mouth in a desperate attempt to milk the so Called British Invasion for money.
And while the DC5 and other British groups were good for the day non of them including the later big names ever had a chance of creating that absurd level of popularity that the Beatles did. There were basically riots of (mostly teenage female)Fans in many places they went Other popular groups were not even CLOSE to that level.
It was catching lightning in a bottle. Every once in a while something just clicks and you get a run away suvpccess that frankly no one really knows why it happened but all the businesses try to duplicate. We see that in Resterants when we get Burger joints then Pisa places the coffee shops, We see that in Movies with every jumping on the space thing after Starwars, we see that in books (and movies) after the Harry Potter books when everyone wanted the next huge children’s book (can you say Percy Jackson?). And we saw that with everyone wanting to dublicate the success of the Beatles by over hyping anyone that talked with a British accent and tried to sing. In fact historically the music industry is perhaps the WORST at jumping on the band wagon. Big Band, Rock and Roll, The British Invation, Psycodelic, Disco, whatever you want yo call the 80s and Rap to name but a few examples.
So pretend all you want that some other group could generate the rediculus popularity of the Beatles and sustain it as long as they did The DC 5 had for all intents and purposes 3 years of major success, And nobody could tell you today what thery sung,, when they sang it or what happened yo any of them, But they made a MOVIE about someone inventing Beatle Songs in a world that the Beatles did exist in recently. That tells me that a movie studio figured that 50 or so years after the Beatles disbanded the music and or grou were still popular enough to base a movie on the songs that wrote. Show me that kind of support for the DC5.
You can’t. Because like most of the other 1960s groups they had there moment in the sun and went away after a few years.
So once again in conclusion yes the DC5 would have done well without the Beatles (I assume they would not be butterflied like I am sure some other groups would have been). But they were not going to hit Beatle Mania levels of popularity, Heck I am not sure any group hit that level in the 60s and 70s. Just like no other Sci Fi movie hit Star Wars level or no other kids book series hit Harry Potter Levels. Or for that matter no other Insane Stuntman ever hit Evil Knievel levels of popularity. You can’t really explain why these things happen they just do.

 

[cortz#9]

I could see the DC5 being butterflied if the Beatles are butterflied first, its all about timing and if the DC5 aren't signed in 1963 and I don't think they would've been without the Beatles three prior hits then the DC5 may have just missed their shot.

In such a scenario the Kinks, Herman's Hermits or the Who may be the first British band to hit it big and of those three only the Who IMO would come close to achieving something close to Beatlemania but it wouldn't be as big as Beatlemania was.

 

[Bryan91]

Have you ever looked into the Beatles and Beatle Mania? It was insane. It existed it was not some propaganda that some crazed fan put out after the fact. Even today original Beatle records and stuff sell for a kings ransom. I can’t explain why this is or was and I don’t really care. But pretending it is propagand or did happen so you can pretend that some average 1960s group from England would have been able to achieve the same thing is utterly ridiculous.
If you WANT and insist on this result then by all means go ahead and write it up. But don’t ask a question about an outcome of a POD when you are 100% insistent on the outcome. This topic isn’t about asking for the opinion of folks on a POD it is about trying to get folks to agree with the opinion you had from the start.
As I said I am NOT a Beatles fan but trying to pretend DC5 could have been as successful if the cosmic lottery hadn’t unfairly decided to give the Beatles all the fame and success and a large string of original songs and a fan bas that probably made Elvis envious is like trying yo make Germany able To invade England.
And the result of them not existing turns a D-Day cross channel invasion into A sea lion.
Yes the British groups will show up just like they did in the late 70s and Eighties. But without the insane popularity of the Beatles they will not get the over the top reception that the “”BRITISH INVASION “ got in the real timeline, The truth is that ALL the. British groups were over hyped and got way way way to much attention in the press and from record labels. The same way that a LOT of Sci Fi movies were over hyped after Star Wars and fantasy and kids movies were after Harry Potter. Without the runaway success/popularity of the Beatles (or some group equally popular) leading the charge the news won’t be desperate for “the Next Beatles” and the recoding companies won’t be signing every person in England that opens there mouth in a desperate attempt to milk the so Called British Invasion for money.
And while the DC5 and other British groups were good for the day non of them including the later big names ever had a chance of creating that absurd level of popularity that the Beatles did. There were basically riots of (mostly teenage female)Fans in many places they went Other popular groups were not even CLOSE to that level.
It was catching lightning in a bottle. Every once in a while something just clicks and you get a run away suvpccess that frankly no one really knows why it happened but all the businesses try to duplicate. We see that in Resterants when we get Burger joints then Pisa places the coffee shops, We see that in Movies with every jumping on the space thing after Starwars, we see that in books (and movies) after the Harry Potter books when everyone wanted the next huge children’s book (can you say Percy Jackson?). And we saw that with everyone wanting to dublicate the success of the Beatles by over hyping anyone that talked with a British accent and tried to sing. In fact historically the music industry is perhaps the WORST at jumping on the band wagon. Big Band, Rock and Roll, The British Invation, Psycodelic, Disco, whatever you want yo call the 80s and Rap to name but a few examples.
So pretend all you want that some other group could generate the rediculus popularity of the Beatles and sustain it as long as they did The DC 5 had for all intents and purposes 3 years of major success, And nobody could tell you today what thery sung,, when they sang it or what happened yo any of them, But they made a MOVIE about someone inventing Beatle Songs in a world that the Beatles did exist in recently. That tells me that a movie studio figured that 50 or so years after the Beatles disbanded the music and or grou were still popular enough to base a movie on the songs that wrote. Show me that kind of support for the DC5.
You can’t. Because like most of the other 1960s groups they had there moment in the sun and went away after a few years.
So once again in conclusion yes the DC5 would have done well without the Beatles (I assume they would not be butterflied like I am sure some other groups would have been). But they were not going to hit Beatle Mania levels of popularity, Heck I am not sure any group hit that level in the 60s and 70s. Just like no other Sci Fi movie hit Star Wars level or no other kids book series hit Harry Potter Levels. Or for that matter no other Insane Stuntman ever hit Evil Knievel levels of popularity. You can’t really explain why these things happen they just do.

Thank you for saying that The Dave Clark 5 would had done well in the US without The Beatles. That is pretty much what I was looking for. I understand that The Dave Clark 5 wouldn't had done as good as The Beatles but I'm not asking for longevity impact. All I'm asking is a group from the UK that could had made it without The Beatles. I mentioned earlier that a lesser British Invasion was probably about to be happened in the mid 60s. Not as great with The Beatles but it still would had happened. Maybe it could had been like how the girl groups were in 1963. Successful but not hugely critical acclaimed and not having the longevity that it would had.

 

[Bryan91]

I could see the DC5 being butterflied if the Beatles are butterflied first, its all about timing and if the DC5 aren't signed in 1963 and I don't think they would've been without the Beatles three prior hits then the DC5 may have just missed their shot.

In such a scenario the Kinks, Herman's Hermits or the Who may be the first British band to hit it big and of those three only the Who IMO would come close to achieving something close to Beatlemania but it wouldn't be as big as Beatlemania was.

I think you mentioned something like this before but I said previously that my opinion would had been that The DC5 would had started it. Not as successful as The Beatles and they wouldn't had evolved but a band that could capture the moment for a few years with pop hits? Yeah, it seems likely possible.

 

[cortz#9]

I think you mentioned something like this before but I said previously that my opinion would had been that The DC5 would had started it. Not as successful as The Beatles and they wouldn't had evolved but a band that could capture the moment for a few years with pop hits? Yeah, it seems likely possible.

But you never say how they start only that they were good enough and that's not always enough, I'm asking what changes with the record execs that they decide to give TDC5 a record deal in 63 without any of OTL's contributions?

TDC5 got a record deal after the Beatles had three hits in the top 40 and that's why the record execs went and gave everyone and their grandmothers a record deal.
Butterfly the Beatle and you may have butterflied the DC5, Rolling Stones and all the Mersey Beat bands, it might take another year for another band like the Kinks, the Who or the Hermits to get enough attention to get a deal.

I think the most likely band to get that attention is the Who because of their stage act of smashing instruments and it would be them and not the DC5 who usher in a smaller British Invasion or it could be Herman's Hermits with their mellower more Pop friendly sound but it would most likely be at least a year later and quite some OTL bands might not get a deal in this ATL.

Maybe after one of these bands make it big the DC5 would get a record deal but I don't see how they would be the first.
Timing is everything.

 

[Bryan91]

But you never say how they start only that they were good enough and that's not always enough, I'm asking what changes with the record execs that they decide to give TDC5 a record deal in 63 without any of OTL's contributions?

TDC5 got a record deal after the Beatles had three hits in the top 40 and that's why the record execs went and gave everyone and their grandmothers a record deal.
Butterfly the Beatle and you may have butterflied the DC5, Rolling Stones and all the Mersey Beat bands, it might take another year for another band like the Kinks, the Who or the Hermits to get enough attention to get a deal.

I think the most likely band to get that attention is the Who because of their stage act of smashing instruments and it would be them and not the DC5 who usher in a smaller British Invasion or it could be Herman's Hermits with their mellower more Pop friendly sound but it would most likely be at least a year later and quite some OTL bands might not get a deal in this ATL.

Maybe after one of these bands make it big the DC5 would get a record deal but I don't see how they would be the first.
Timing is everything.

The Dave Clark 5 were releasing singles in 1962 at a time when The Beatles still weren't popular. Let's just say that record companies signed The Dave Clark 5 in 1963 because they weren't only a guitar group. They had saxophones and keyboard members in their band. You remembered that guitar groups are on their way out quote for The Beatles? Well that wouldn't had affected The Dave Clark 5 hugely since they were not only a guitar group having saxophones and keyboard members would had hugely helped.

 

[cortz#9]

The Dave Clark 5 were releasing singles in 1962 at a time when The Beatles still weren't popular. Let's just say that record companies signed The Dave Clark 5 in 1963 because they weren't only a guitar group. They had saxophones and keyboard members in their band. You remembered that guitar groups are on their way out quote for The Beatles? Well that wouldn't had affected The Dave Clark 5 hugely since they were not only a guitar group having saxophones and keyboard members would had hugely helped.

According to everything I've read The Dave Clark 5 didn't record anything until late 1963 but websites do get things wrong but I do know they didn't have a "hit" record until January 1964.

 

[mudhead]

According to everything I've read The Dave Clark 5 didn't record anything until late 1963 but websites do get things wrong but I do know they didn't have a "hit" record until January 1964.

I think "Do You Love Me?" was a minor hit late in '63, but as you say "Glad All Over" was their first biggie, in January '64.

I've never heard of them releasing anything in '62, though I suppose they may have done a demo or two.

 

[neopeius]

I also have a question. Why are the Beatles not here? Were they never born? Died early? Not have schoolyard chemistry? Or just get jobs as studio musicians? Perhaps just make a living as songwriters like hundreds of others who never recorded what flowed from there minds? What if McCartney and Lennon were the Jim Steinmans of Great Britain? What if their original music were sold to the highest bidder and still out there during the OTL but under a dozen groups?

In my story, "Sad all over" (note the DC5 reference...), the Beatles get invited to America early, fly over on Nov. 22, 1963 (yes THAT date) and crash at Idylwild. Not only do they not get the exposure in America, though Beatlemania has exploded in the UK, but their very arrival is eclipsed by the national tragedy.

Could the DC5 show up for a show in February? Sure. But while it can be argued whether Glad all Over is a better song than I Wanna Hold Your Hand (maybe -- it certainly sounds more Now), the fact is the latter song caused Beatlemania. The DC5 didn't cause thousands to swoon. They were not as nor ever going to be as big as the Beatles.

I'm not a Beatles apologist. They're not my favorite band in the world. I like the DC5 and have all their albums. But the Beatles were the right band at the right time with the right look and the right talent. They are not interchangeable. Without them, I don't think you get a British invasion.

And by the way, this was just posted by one of my staffers (I don't know if you know this, but I run Galactic Journey -- we just lived through all of this and appreciate it with an immediacy that few today can share):


On music, I was recently comparing the year end charts for the UK and US for 1965:

https://www.uk-charts.top-source.info/top-100-1965.shtml
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billboard_Year-End_Hot_100_singles_of_1965

And I think, because us Brits hear a lot about the British Invasion we assume that the American charts look a lot like the British charts, so I was surprised to see how different they were. In terms of country makeup of the top 50 singles, the UK is: UK - 32 USA - 13 Australia - 3 Germany - 1 Italy - 1 Whilst in the USA it is: USA - 31 UK - 16 Germany - 2 Australia - 1 Even the makeup is different for the regions, whilst in the USA the Merseybeat bands are still huge, they have largely faded away in the UK with the blues scene centred on London being much more popular. Whilst in the UK, the main US artists to chart are the old crooners with the garage bands and soul artists not really making much of an impact.

An interesting little difference.


So the music scenes in both countries were quite different even with the cross-pollination of the Invasion. It wouldn't take much for the Invasion to never happen and for American charts to just include a sprinkling of UK hits amongst the French, German, Italian, Japanese, etc. imports. There'd be more Nelson/Sedaka/Presley influence. The Motown and Dylan descendants would still be big, and folk as well. Just less interest in the Stones, the Yardbirds, and Kinks, etc.

 

[neopeius]

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?

Where would AMERICA be without Black music?

I started Galactic Journey in 1954. This was right before the Rhythm n' Blues (Rock n' Roll) revolution. The music was all schmaltz and overripe torch ballads and swing with some rockabilly and Western for larding. It was awful. The mood was ripe for a change.

Luckily, you couldn't segregate the air waves and some white folks tuned into the Black stations and dug what they heard. But it took Elvis and Pat Boone et. al. to popularize it amongst the rest of the white folks.

Without Black music, latin might be bigger -- it was really big in the OTL late 50s, and of course there was the 1956-7 Calypso craze (which was African-derived but not Black American.)

But thankfully, Black music did happen, so we don't have to contemplate that bleak timeline.

Relevant to the current discussion, in OTL 1963, music was in this weird, chaotic place again. I wrote an article about it at the time (I really need to do one for this year -- I've been remiss).

http://galacticjourney.org/april-11-1963-a-myriad-of-musicks-the-state-of-popular-music-in-1963/

Basically, I don't think there's ever been a year with more variety in the Top 40 than 1963. There was no defining genre of music. The Beatles showed up and dominated that uncertain era and refashioned the music-scape.

Now, of course, I may be contradicting the premise I state above, that only the Beatles could lead an Invasion. It may well be that we (America) were so confused and chaotic that any British band could have been introduced the new Rock music. I'm not a seer. I'm just a writer. The story I wrote leaned on the side of The Great Band theory I think I still lean that way. But I wouldn't stake my life on it.

 

[neopeius]

By the way, to the folks saying the Beatles are overrated and not great songwriters, as someone who's not only just lived through the time in question, but whose teenage daughter has essentially also been immersed in the time (we have a real radio station in the house that broadcasts music from exactly 55 years ago -- it's pretty much what she's listened to the last five years), I offer these two notes:

1) The Beatles weren't the only ones who benefited from Lennon/McCartney's songwriting -- the list of bands/performers who either covered Beatles songs or who got L/M songs penned for them is quite long, and the songs were hits.

2) My daughter wasn't a huge fan of the Beatles going into 1965. She considered them too unpolished in their performance, preferring other bands like The Kinks and The Animals and The Stones (we watched a lot of Shindig! -- we have a TV station, too...)

But when I put Rubber Soul on the turntable last December, she looked at me wide eyed after side one and exclaimed, "Where did these guys COME from?" It was music of a type and caliber she'd never head before, and she'd heard everything.

(trivia: the Rubber Soul title font also launched That 60s font that has become representative of the decade)

 

[cortz#9]

In my story, "Sad all over" (note the DC5 reference...), the Beatles get invited to America early, fly over on Nov. 22, 1963 (yes THAT date) and crash at Idylwild. Not only do they not get the exposure in America, though Beatlemania has exploded in the UK, but their very arrival is eclipsed by the national tragedy.

Could the DC5 show up for a show in February? Sure. But while it can be argued whether Glad all Over is a better song than I Wanna Hold Your Hand (maybe -- it certainly sounds more Now), the fact is the latter song caused Beatlemania. The DC5 didn't cause thousands to swoon. They were not as nor ever going to be as big as the Beatles.

I'm not a Beatles apologist. They're not my favorite band in the world. I like the DC5 and have all their albums. But the Beatles were the right band at the right time with the right look and the right talent. They are not interchangeable. Without them, I don't think you get a British invasion.

And by the way, this was just posted by one of my staffers (I don't know if you know this, but I run Galactic Journey -- we just lived through all of this and appreciate it with an immediacy that few today can share):


On music, I was recently comparing the year end charts for the UK and US for 1965:

https://www.uk-charts.top-source.info/top-100-1965.shtml
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billboard_Year-End_Hot_100_singles_of_1965

And I think, because us Brits hear a lot about the British Invasion we assume that the American charts look a lot like the British charts, so I was surprised to see how different they were. In terms of country makeup of the top 50 singles, the UK is: UK - 32 USA - 13 Australia - 3 Germany - 1 Italy - 1 Whilst in the USA it is: USA - 31 UK - 16 Germany - 2 Australia - 1 Even the makeup is different for the regions, whilst in the USA the Merseybeat bands are still huge, they have largely faded away in the UK with the blues scene centred on London being much more popular. Whilst in the UK, the main US artists to chart are the old crooners with the garage bands and soul artists not really making much of an impact.

An interesting little difference.


So the music scenes in both countries were quite different even with the cross-pollination of the Invasion. It wouldn't take much for the Invasion to never happen and for American charts to just include a sprinkling of UK hits amongst the French, German, Italian, Japanese, etc. imports. There'd be more Nelson/Sedaka/Presley influence. The Motown and Dylan descendants would still be big, and folk as well. Just less interest in the Stones, the Yardbirds, and Kinks, etc.

Very interesting. What do you think of the chance that the Kinks or the Who or lol Herman's hermits being the first rock band to make it big in Britain and then the US in a world with no Beatles?

 

[DougM]

Like I and others have repeatedly said. It was Beatle Mania that triggered the so called British Invasion. Where everyone wanted the Beatles. Be it for a concert a TV appearance, an interview, or what have you and when they could get them they found someone else “close enough” in this case some other British group. Thus we got the British Invasion.
Unfortunatly with out the initial over the top fan response to the Beatles it is not as instantly obv that you can make money or exploit the flavor of the week “British groups”.
So yes the good groups probably get a chance but you won’t see as many British groups and the “invasion “ won’t be anywhere close to as big.
it will just be another trend like Folk or psychedelic or whatever.

 

[neopeius]

Very interesting. What do you think of the chance that the Kinks or the Who or lol Herman's hermits being the first rock band to make it big in Britain and then the US in a world with no Beatles?

The Kinks definitely don't share a lot of DNA with The Beatles, which makes them easier to study in isolation. My suspicion is that they are a little too esoteric. They're a really underrated band, one of my favorites, but for every "All Day and All of the Night" they've got a "Well Respected Man", which is to say, they don't have a ton of songs that fit a certain mold, which restricts their mania-level appeal.

Herman's Hermits are gormless copycats whose lead singer was immediately offputting to my Shindig!-watching daughter.

The Who are late bloomers, comparatively. Also, like the Stones, they take a while to have a consistent run of hits.

I'd instead put my money on Gerry and the Pacemakers, perhaps. The right time, the right sound, the right look.

It may well be that, without an invasion, Motown and the Beach Boys and The Byrds become too entrenched as the mode to be displaced. As for what happens back home, I think you get to the Animals, the Moody Blues, etc. in the London scene and maybe just skip Merseybeat mania.

 

[cortz#9]

The Kinks definitely don't share a lot of DNA with The Beatles, which makes them easier to study in isolation. My suspicion is that they are a little too esoteric. They're a really underrated band, one of my favorites, but for every "All Day and All of the Night" they've got a "Well Respected Man", which is to say, they don't have a ton of songs that fit a certain mold, which restricts their mania-level appeal.

Herman's Hermits are gormless copycats whose lead singer was immediately offputting to my Shindig!-watching daughter.

The Who are late bloomers, comparatively. Also, like the Stones, they take a while to have a consistent run of hits.

I'd instead put my money on Gerry and the Pacemakers, perhaps. The right time, the right sound, the right look.

It may well be that, without an invasion, Motown and the Beach Boys and The Byrds become too entrenched as the mode to be displaced. As for what happens back home, I think you get to the Animals, the Moody Blues, etc. in the London scene and maybe just skip Merseybeat mania.

I'm not a fan of the Hermits but I think they'd of appeal to the British record execs of that era, very commercial boy-band-ish syrupy gloop that would appeal to teen-age girls.
I also thought the Who's stage act (smashing instruments) would start a buzz going around and someone in the record industry would eventually go check them out but yeah I agree it would be much later.