Any Beatles fans here?

[FrankHudson]

Originally Posted by JonPR

Here's an interesting counterfactual.
How would pop music have developed if the Beatles had never existed?
If John or Paul had never been born? Or if they'd never met? Or if they'd never gone to Hamburg? if Brian Epstein had never discovered them?

I have a weakness for that kind of question, one I've thought about.

I don't know as much about English timelines, how many other beat groups were formed before the Beatles hit it big, but I get the impression there was enough that something would have happened there without a successful Beatles. I do know there was a UK folk revival (roughly like the post WWII US one), and that would have continued, perhaps even had more impact. A key question would be could that British rock group scene have happened, but without much impact on the US in a timeline without the successful Beatles?

Beyond that UK question, there's no question that the US music scene would have grown and thrived without the Beatles. There's just too much talent. There used to be (maybe still is?) an inaccurate casual history that said after the original Fifities rock'n'roll boom that US music was a big nothing until the Beatles came a saviors. I think the more accurate view is that the Beatles came in just as a new wave was starting go grow here (Motown, Brill Building/Girl Groups, instrumental rock, country, R&B in general) and on top of that you have the size of the folk revival here (who supplied a lot of the artists who became famous later in the Sixties, even if in the rock context) and I haven't even mentioned hard bop and funky jazz. To some degree the Beatles changed the mix of how all these things developed and changed, but in another timeline they would have developed anyway, perhaps in ways that might have been interesting. And Bob Dylan didn't require the Beatles as a prerequisite to happen.

But here's another thing that I believe happened because of the Beatles, and might not have happened otherwise. The idea of the self-contained group that sang, played their own instruments and wrote a good portion of their own material was fairly rare before the Beatles and it (for a time) became much much more common. Bob Dylan would have changed songwriting even without the Beatles, but would the Americans have had more solo acts with more or less interchangeable backing bands?

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by FrankHudson

I have a weakness for that kind of question, one I've thought about.

I don't know as much about English timelines, how many other beat groups were formed before the Beatles hit it big, but I get the impression there was enough that something would have happened there without a successful Beatles. I do know there was a UK folk revival (roughly like the post WWII US one), and that would have continued, perhaps even had more impact. A key question would be could that British rock group scene have happened, but without much impact on the US in a timeline without the successful Beatles?

The Beatles were the beginning of the UK "beat group" boom.
Before them, there were a smattering of vaguely similar line-ups: Cliff Richard and the Shadows, Johnny Kidd and the Pirates, the Tornados (more or less a bunch of session players produced by Joe Meek), etc. So there were a handful of groups in 1960-62 inspired by that Shadows line-up (3 electric guitars - lead, rhythm, bass - drums). Remember the bass guitar was a pretty new idea back in 1960, and Hank Marvin's Strat was the first ever seen in the UK (inspired by Buddy Holly). Likewise, using an electric guitar instead of acoustic to strum rhythm. That Shadows line-up was space-age, and definitely influenced the Beatles. The Pirates, in comparison, were a trio - forerunner of groups like the Who, even Cream, Led Zep and Hendrix. This is how they sounded in '62: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKC4sxHKPjM

The impact the Beatles had was mainly twofold: (a) the idea of a group with no named leader - three equally charismatic front men - (b) the idea of a group writing their own songs. Both these things were somewhat baffling to those in the record business then.
And of course, it was their enormous impact on the young female audience that really made everyone else sit up and take notice. "Beatlemania" swept the UK in the summer of 1963, and record company execs fell over themselves to sign up every other group in Liverpool, as if the magic was all there. Johnny Kidd's group themselves (after a low period in 61-62) had big hits in 63 and 64 thanks to the spotlight on groups that the Beatles inspired.

The folk boom wasn't a big thing here until later - 1965, when Donovan arrived and - like an angler's bait - brought Dylan out from the underground.
But you're right that there was a vibrant club scene in both folk and blues before the Beatles - both dating back to the mid 1950s at least. The issue is whether (and how) that could have achieved pop status - hits in the singles charts, as opposed to minimal album sales among cognoscenti. It needed an act with the multiple charisma of the Beatles.
The Stones had some of that, of course, but even they piggy-backed on the Beatles' success to some degree - their first hit (late '63) was a Lennon-McCartney song, and it may be that even Loog Oldham wouldn't have spotted their potential if he didn't have the Beatles example in his mind.
Otherwise, folk and blues could just have continued as a kind of off-shoot of the jazz scene, with which they were closely associated in the 1950s - with maybe the occasional novelty hit, as happened with trad jazz.
With folk, it was Donovan that provided the essential charisma to take it out of the worthy hands of the likes of Peter Paul and Mary.
In case any reminder is needed of the insane response to Donovan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTzniYkUq34. Since when did any other acoustic fingerstylist get that sort of reception? When did Dylan himself?

So - stuff would still have happened, but it would have been slower and more gradual without the kick (and it was a huge kick!) the Beatles represented.

Originally Posted by FrankHudson

Beyond that UK question, there's no question that the US music scene would have grown and thrived without the Beatles. There's just too much talent.

Sure, but talent is never enough.

Originally Posted by FrankHudson

There used to be (maybe still is?) an inaccurate casual history that said after the original Fifities rock'n'roll boom that US music was a big nothing until the Beatles came a saviors. I think the more accurate view is that the Beatles came in just as a new wave was starting go grow here (Motown, Brill Building/Girl Groups, instrumental rock, country, R&B in general) and on top of that you have the size of the folk revival here (who supplied a lot of the artists who became famous later in the Sixties, even if in the rock context) and I haven't even mentioned hard bop and funky jazz.

Yes, but hard bop and funky jazz have nothing to do with pop music!

The African-American pop scene was always vibrant - arguably the source of all 20thC popular music, at least of all innovation in popular music. The Beatles themselves, of course, played largely covers of African-American music, and learned their craft that way.
But the significant movement in the early 60s in terms of the future rock boom was the Beach Boys and surf music. That represented a significant number of post-rock'n'roll guitar groups, before the Beatles had their impact. At a time when it might have seemed that all those groups were destined to be as short-lived as those before them - pop being by its nature ephemeral and novelty-driven - the Beatles had a similar galvanising effect on that scene to the effect they had in the UK. It wasn't just that they got the girls screaming, but they persuade countless guys to pick up guitars and try for the same thing. Otherwise those surf and country groups might have just carried on playing surf and country (Brian Wilson always excepted of course), just as those UK R&B groups would have carried on with R&B.

Originally Posted by FrankHudson

Bob Dylan didn't require the Beatles as a prerequisite to happen.

Sure. But he has said himself that he was stunned when he heard I Want to Hold Your Hand, because he'd been assuming that rock'n'roll was passe. And the other track that must have influenced him in his new post-folk direction - perhaps even more - was the Animals 'House of the Rising Sun': a song he had himself recorded as a folk singer, but here was that song with a muscular rock arrangement, with electric guitars and (significantly) an organ! Without those powerful examples, how would his restless creativity have manifested itself?
How would the equally inventive and intelligent Frank Zappa have operated, without that group explosion to react against?

There certainly would have been great popular music produced in the US if the Beatles had never happened. It just would looked - and sounded - rather different.

[slooky]

interesting video, shows how really talented The Beatles really were