Beatles gone after second album -- whither music?

[neopeius]

I recently submitted a story for a Beatles-themed anthology, the premise of which was that the Beatles schedule their trip to America earlier, for November 22, 1963. This is the day they released their second album, and also the day that a rather significant event happened in Dallas.

In this timeline, the Beatles crash at Idlewild, and everyone aboard the 707 is killed. However, this tragedy essentially goes uncommented, in part because Kennedy's assassination sweeps all news away, and in part because the Beatles weren't a hit in the United States yet.

The story I wrote takes place one year later. In England, the pop music revolution is essentially as OTL, with the Dave Clark Five, the Stones, the Kinks, etc. being big hits. But in America, without a dominating avatar of the British Invasion, and with so many musical movements of its own, none of them reaching ascendance, 1964 looks a lot like 1963, and Elvis and Sedaka (and presumably Nelson, etc.) are still big hitters.

So I ask you -- what do you think happens if the Beatles are gone after they spawn Beatlemania but before they conquer the United States?

 

[Histor32]

I recently submitted a story for a Beatles-themed anthology, the premise of which was that the Beatles schedule their trip to America earlier, for November 22, 1963. This is the day they released their second album, and also the day that a rather significant event happened in Dallas.

In this timeline, the Beatles crash at Idlewild, and everyone aboard the 707 is killed. However, this tragedy essentially goes uncommented, in part because Kennedy's assassination sweeps all news away, and in part because the Beatles weren't a hit in the United States yet.

The story I wrote takes place one year later. In England, the pop music revolution is essentially as OTL, with the Dave Clark Five, the Stones, the Kinks, etc. being big hits. But in America, without a dominating avatar of the British Invasion, and with so many musical movements of its own, none of them reaching ascendance, 1964 looks a lot like 1963, and Elvis and Sedaka (and presumably Nelson, etc.) are still big hitters.

So I ask you -- what do you think happens if the Beatles are gone after they spawn Beatlemania but before they conquer the United States?

Rock will still arise.. There is more than just the beetles.. There is elvis, the stones, the who, Clapton, christ.. Beatles are awesome.. but over rated.. Rock will still happen..nothingbis going to stop that. Blues infusion is everywhere.

Now that said.. The Beatles were crazy.. Do the young girls go gaga for something else?.. Note they also went gaga for the monkeys and others..

Even with out the Beatles the scene is going to push forward.. To me it's like saying what if Metallica said enough after master of puppets and cliffs death and hung it up..

Maybe something.. But not much too many bands are onboard..

I'm not saying their wouldn't be a hole missing from Lennon and McCartney.. And Harrison too...

But rock would go on.. And grow and be what it was, cat was out of the bad and as culture shifted and people wanted to rebel.. This new gig gave voice and power

 

[Kalvan]

[Sights] We still have Wilson Pickett, Neil Young and the Mynah Birds, James Brown, the Beach Boys,and Bob Dylan has just gone electric at the Newport Pop Festival. And for the future, Jimmi Hendrix is already playing rhythm guitar in Little Richard's backing band, The Crazy World of Arthur Brown has already formed and is hard at work on the lyrics to Fire!, and the likes of The Kinks and The Trogs are already playing countryside pubs in the Home Counties.

Yes, this timeline will miss "Strawberry Fields Forever," Sgt. Pepper, the White Album, the soundtrack to Yellow Submarine, and the entire outputs of Wings and the Plastic Ono Band, but there's still a lot of rock left.

 

[Kalvan]

Oh, and without the Beatles, Mike Nesmith and Mickey Dolnez will either have solid careers in session music or else join some atl famous band(s), and David Bowie will record all his space rock hits under his birth name of David Jones.

 

[neopeius]

I won't argue that the Beatles weren't the foundation of all music. But it is impossible to overstate their impact on 1964 (and beyond) in America. They filled 7 of the top 10 slots for months on end. It was nuts.

Without them, I don't know that the British Invasion is so overwhelming, sweeping all before it.

Who are the beneficiaries in America of this respite? The Beach Boys are already at the top and climbing. Is there more interest in Mo-town? Surf and instrumental probably gets another year of life.

In Britain, are there any sounds that the Beatles pioneered that will be slower in coming? Are there bands poised to be the leaders in their stead?

 

[Kalvan]

Soundwise, they were a compromise within the Liverpool "Merseybeat" scene between the likes of the Merseybeats and The Dave Clark Five on one side, and the Kinks and the Kingsmen on the other.

If anything, the harder edged groups from that scene held back by the Beatles' squeaky clean image and (Until Sgt. Pepper and The Magical Mystery Tour) clean channel sound might have a better chance of being more than one hit wonders.

That said, in America, "Get Back" and to a lesser extant "Come Together" seem to have been harbingers of Seventies Southern Rock sound. Without them, I suspect Mountain and Blue Cheer will be more directly influential on that sound, despite not being Southern bands by geography.

 

[Mark E.]

The early Beatles recordings are still there. Even if they are dead, there is no reason "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" can't be released on schedule, followed by their already-recorded tracks. It has been said that the JFK assassination created a very somber holiday season and the first Beatles song broke the ice. The same British invasion could still ensue, it's just that the Beatles' contribution ends in 1964 (maybe a few songs into the next year). The Stones, Kinks, DC5 and others are still there. So, OTL continues well into 1965.

 

[neopeius]

I just don't see a dead band having the same energy as a live one. Remember that part of the linchpin to the Beatles' success here was their tour of the East Coast in the winter of '64, and their live performances.

 

[C. McKay]

I wonder if Dylan would have gone electric ITTL: http://time.com/3968092/bob-dylan-electric-newport/.

Actually, I imagine Don Kirschner (the man who tried to manage the Monkees) being a lot happier ITTL. He could have been a white Barry Gordy with Davy Jones as his Smokey Robinson without the songwriting. In fact, I imagine one type of pop music being white Motown for the girls to dream over. Folk rock would be rougher, if it exists. Perhaps electric Dylan would be imitating Mick Jagger.

 

[Mark E.]

Without the Beatles, there would be no Monkees. Sure, Davy Jones could have been cast in a rock band comedy, but the audience could not assign the Beatles image. American performers would fill part of the gap, but the British Invasion would still bring in a flood of new music.

 

[neopeius]

"White Motown" -- there's an interesting thought. Blue-eyed soul but earlier? (it existed at the time to a degree, for sure).

I thought of a fun surf evolution with wild prog-style keyboard solos in the middle: "Surf-electronica"

 

[C. McKay]

Yes, Neopeius, an earlier blue-eyed soul...or a later Pat Boone covering the songs of African-American artists. "Surf-electronica" sounds like a lot of fun.

Actually, without The Beatles, Davy Jones might not have gone in for rock or pop. From IMDB: [explaining what made him decide on transferring from theater to rock & roll] I watched the Beatles from backstage at The Ed Sullivan Show. When I saw the girls going crazy, I said to myself, "This is it. I want a piece of that." He was already a successful actor, having been nominated for a Tony in 1963 for the role of the Artful Dodger in Oliver!