What if the Beatles never existed?

[raysachs]

Originally Posted by rokdog49

I already am quite aware of the many members on here who are not fans.
Just jealous, I guess.

Wait, are you a Patriots fan too?

I’m a fan if the Beatles - I liked em a lot and respect and appreciate them even more. George Harrison, with Ravi and Billy Preston (and a vey young Robben Ford it seems) was my first concert. But my tastes run heavily toward the blues and at least a heavy blues influence. So folks like the Stones and Clapton were a much bigger deal to me as I matured. But there’s a fair amount of that stuff that crept into the Beatles music in their later days. But my life would have been ok without em, whereas a life without an Exile on Main Street to lean on for nearly 50 years now is simply unimaginable!

-Ray

[MikeBmusic]

People who are not Beatles fans dismiss the influence they had on the whole music world - players and listeners. Might as well try to argue with a flat-Earther.

[raysachs]

Originally Posted by MikeBmusic

People who are not Beatles fans dismiss the influence they had on the whole music world - players and listeners. Might as well try to argue with a flat-Earther.

That's not true. It's very possible not to particularly LIKE the Beatles (let alone gush over them) while still recognizing the huge influence they had on popular music with reverberations that will be felt for many years to come. I liked them, but the older I get, the less I like them and the less I listen to their stuff, yet I still listen a lot to other music from that era and before. I wouldn't really call myself a fan. But I reject the implication that to appreciate them and respect what they did, you must be a fan or particularly even like their music.

Particularly their early poppy stuff, which was the most influential of their music in terms of changing perceptions at the time, I find incredibly boring and saccharine now. I understand it was radical at the time, got them on Ed Sullivan, and changed the world. But to me it sounds completely dated. Whereas most of the later stuff, from the White Album on (and oddly Rubber Soul - not sure how they snuck that one in there), still sounds pretty good to me today. But that's not the stuff that changed the world - at that point the stuff they'd put in motion had overtaken them and they were just trying to keep up. Which they did quite well.

We can have differing opinions, even on the Beatles, without being flat-earthers...

[golfreggie]

The trailer is interesting! I think it makes for a great concept for a "what if?" movie. I don't watch movies much anymore, but that is one I will try to see for sure! How do you play "Yesterday" for your friends and they have never heard of it or Paul or the Beatles! Imagine what must have gone thru the young man's brain! Mass confusion. Of course, the movie could bomb, but the concept intrigues me!

[Jaden]

Originally Posted by rokdog49

Being the huge Beatles fan that I am obviously I'm biased.
I know lots of twenty somethings and younger who know who the Beatles were and love a lot of their music.
Yes, George Martin was a huge part of the Beatles success, but THEY wrote the songs and for the most part, they pushed him in the direction THEY wanted to go.
Without the Beatles, there are literally thousands of people who would never had made music afterwards. It's not arguable.
I for one would probably have not picked up a guitar.
I already am quite aware of the many members on here who are not fans.
Just jealous, I guess.

They were the number #1 band of that generation I agree; I’m with you Rokdog on that. With the Stones close behind. Hey, I’ve been looking for the triple vinyl All Things Must Pass/ Harrison so I’m in deep.

It’s just that the jazz guys are blowing my head off these days for a change of pace/ shifting gears.

[PorkPieGuy]

Well, we still would have had Brian Wilson, so things still would have progressed nicely.

[mr. beaumont]

I "like" the Beatles, I mean, I can't remember the last time I put on a Beatles record, but I enjoy the music.

But to discount the fact that they LITERALLY changed the musical world--more than once? Craziness.

[Mandobart]

Originally Posted by DungBeatle

If there had been no Beatles, there still would have been Chuck Berry, Elvis, The Dave Clark Five, Buddy Holly, etc., so I think the beat would have gone on.
=Bob=

Yes absolutely. It may come as a shock to many that music existed before George Martin's production skills transformed a Liverpool band into an international and intergenerational phenomenon. A lot of other great music that was created contemporaneously got eclipsed as a result. And though they were a huge influence to what came after, they weren't the only influence. See Bill Monroe, Chet Atkins, Pete Seeger, Bob Dylan, etc. What The Beatles did was actually step back to melodic based music like the musical theater hits from the 30's and 40's. Rock n' roll is really rhythm based, not melodic based. But white American and western European top 40 audiences preferred melody over rhythm at that time.

[rokdog49]

Originally Posted by PorkPieGuy

Well, we still would have had Brian Wilson, so things still would have progressed nicely.

Brian Wilson readily admitted the Beatles were his heroes, competition and driving force to push his own creativity to its farthest limits. You can look it up and it's in the movie that was made about him. Even the Stones admitted they tried to emulate the Beatles at every turn.
Anyone who says that music post-Beatles would have been remotely the same...
Sorry, I respectfully and loudly disagree. I'm not a Beatles "authority " but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express once or twice.

[rokdog49]

Originally Posted by Mandobart

Yes absolutely. It may come as a shock to many that music existed before George Martin's production skills transformed a Liverpool band into an international and intergenerational phenomenon. A lot of other great music that was created contemporaneously got eclipsed as a result. And though they were a huge influence to what came after, they weren't the only influence. See Bill Monroe, Chet Atkins, Pete Seeger, Bob Dylan, etc. What The Beatles did was actually step back to melodic based music like the musical theater hits from the 30's and 40's. Rock n' roll is really rhythm based, not melodic based. But white American and western European top 40 audiences preferred melody over rhythm at that time.

I agree, but give credit where it's due. Without their constant drive to explore their boundaries of creativity, George Martin would have had nothing to do.
The Beatles are and were so much more than a "Liverpool Band."
Certainly artists who came before and after them influenced our so called popular music. None as much as the Beatles.

[Inyo]

Original poster provides the following threadline: "What if the Beatles never existed?"

Paul would have never died in the 1960s.

[PorkPieGuy]

Originally Posted by rokdog49

Brian Wilson readily admitted the Beatles were his heroes, competition and driving force to push his own creativity to its farthest limits. You can look it up and it's in the movie that was made about him. Even the Stones admitted they tried to emulate the Beatles at every turn.
Anyone who says that music post-Beatles would have been remotely the same...

Very cool. Didn't know this.

I'm just a Gen-X'er who grew up listening to metal and cut my teeth on 90's rock. I never spent a lot of time learning the roots of rock-n-roll, and probably never will because I simply don't have the time. I work a lot, drive a lot, and play a crap-ton of music every week, and between all of this, I hang out with my family.

The more I find out, the less I realize I know. Been this way for years.

Carry on.

[muscmp]

and, what if buddy holly had not died?

play music!

[Rodger Knox]

Originally Posted by Jaden

They were the number #1 band of that generation I agree; I’m with you Rokdog on that. With the Stones close behind. Hey, I’ve been looking for the triple vinyl All Things Must Pass/ Harrison so I’m in deep.

It’s just that the jazz guys are blowing my head off these days for a change of pace/ shifting gears.

I've got that album, as well as the original release of the White Album and several other Beatle Albums. If the Beatles hadn't existed, one of the other British invasion bands would have been #1, and having lived through that period I'm not sure the Beatles were really #1. The Stones were just as popular, and their music was just a good, but what the Beatles had was the ability to make teenage girls scream. None of the other bands of that time were as successful at that, their only competition was Elvis.

What if Buddy Holly had lived? He was a big influence on the Beatles, their name is a takeoff of the Crickets.

[Jaden]

Originally Posted by Mandobart

Yes absolutely. It may come as a shock to many that music existed before George Martin's production skills transformed a Liverpool band into an international and intergenerational phenomenon. A lot of other great music that was created contemporaneously got eclipsed as a result. And though they were a huge influence to what came after, they weren't the only influence. See Bill Monroe, Chet Atkins, Pete Seeger, Bob Dylan, etc. What The Beatles did was actually step back to melodic based music like the musical theater hits from the 30's and 40's. Rock n' roll is really rhythm based, not melodic based. But white American and western European top 40 audiences preferred melody over rhythm at that time.

Posts like this and Rodger Knox’s (above) make all the hazards of the internet worth it (for me), and always a nod to Ray. Knowledgeable folks here.